Cervical cancer screening programs: study at Instituto Adolfo Lutz show a necessity of an age-group evaluation
PDF (Português (Brasil))

Keywords

cervical squamous intraepithelial lesion
age-group
Pap test
cervix smears

How to Cite

1.
Etlinger D, Pereira SMM, Oikawa KF, Marin AC, Araújo RS de, Souza C de J de, Yamamoto LSU. Cervical cancer screening programs: study at Instituto Adolfo Lutz show a necessity of an age-group evaluation. Rev Inst Adolfo Lutz [Internet]. 2008 Jan. 1 [cited 2024 Dec. 4];67(1):64-8. Available from: https://periodicos.saude.sp.gov.br/RIAL/article/view/32792

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to identify the age - group of women who referred to Health Centers and were classified as SIL, HSIL and cervical neoplasia, and also to evaluate whether the age-group recommended by the Brazilian Health Ministry for being enrolled in the Cancer Screening Program is adequate. A total of 30,910 cervical smears collected by conventional Pap test were analyzed. For 14.779 women at age-group <34 years old, 841 (5.7%) were diagnosed as atypical cellular alteration (AEA). Among these women, 74 (8.8%) presented high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL), 38(4.5%) atypical squamous cells of which the high - grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H) cannot be excluded, and 369 (43.9%) showed low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL). Of 9,710 women at age-group of 35-49 years old, 442 (4.6%) were diagnosed as AEA, and among them 41 (9.3 %) were HSIL, 29 (6.3%) were ASC-H, 94 (21.2%) were LSIL and carcinoma was evidenced in 2 (0.5%). The age-group >50 years old was composed by 6,421 women, and among them 327 (5.1%) were diagnosed as AEA, of them 35 (10.7%) were HSIL, 23 (7.0%) were ASC-H, 26 (8.0%) were LSIL and 8 (2.4%) had carcinoma. These findings evidenced that particular and specific attention should be addressed to young women and teenager in accomplishing the Cervical Cancer Screening Programs.
https://doi.org/10.53393/rial.2008.67.32792
PDF (Português (Brasil))

References

1. Incidencia de câncer no Brasil: Estimativa 2008. Instituto Nacional do Câncer. [cited 2008 marc 14]. Disponível em:http://www.inca.gov.br/estimativa/2008/index.asp

2. Arcuri RA, Cunha KCF, Alves EC, Castro AA, Maciel RA, Rosmanino AC, Silva PL, Xavier GC. Controle interno da qualidade em citopatologia ginecológica: um estudo de 48.355casos. J Bras Patol Med Lab. 2002, 38(2): 141-7.

3. Kitchener HC, Castle PE, Cox JT. Achievements andlimitations of cervical cytology screening. Vaccine. 2006;24(suppl 3): S63-S70.

4. CDC. Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines,2006. MMWR. 2006; 55 (N°. RR-11): 1-94. [cited 2007 nov22]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5511a1.htm

5. Weinstock H, Berman S, Cates W Jr. Sexually transmitteddiseases among American youth: incidence and prevalenceestimates, 2000. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2004; 36(1): 6-10.

6. Ault KA. Epidemiology and natural history of Human Papillomavirus infections in the female genital tract. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 14: 1-5.

7. Ho GY, Bierman R, Beardsley L, Chang CJ, Burk RD. Naturalhistory of cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection asmeasured by repeated DNA testing in adolescent and youngwomen. N Engl J Med. 1998; 338(7): 423-8.

8. Moscicki AB, Hills N, Shiboski S, Powell K, Jay N, HansonE, Miller S, Clayton L, Farhat S, Broering J, Darragh T,Palefsky J. Risks for incident human papillomavirusinfection and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesiondevelopment in young females. JAMA. 2001; 285(23):2995-3002.

9. Woodman CB, Collins S, Rollason TP, Winter H, Bailey A,Yates M, Young LS. Human papillomavirus type 18 and rapidlyprogressing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Lancet. 2003;361(9351): 40-3.

10. National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIH Consensusstatement: Cervical Cancer. 1996; 14:1-38.

11. Schlect NF, Kulaga S, Robitaille J. Persistent humanpapillomavirus infection as a predictor of cervicalintraepithelial neoplasia. JAMA. 2001; 286: 3106-3114.

12. Santos ALF, Derchain SFM, Martins MR, Sarian LO, MartinezEZ, Syrjänen KJ. Human papillomavirus viral load inpredicting high-grade CIN in women with cervical smearsshowing only atypical squamous cells or low-gradesquamous intraepithelial lesion. Sao Paulo Med J 2003; 121:238-43.

13. Thomas C, Wright Jr. Cervical Cancer Screening in the 21stCentury: Is it time to retire the Pap smear? Clin ObstetGynecol. 2007; 50(2): 313-23.

14. Hein K, Schreiber K, Cohen MI, Koss LG. Cervical cytology:the need for routine screening in the sexually activeadolescent. J Pediatr. 1989; 91: 123 -6.

15. Moscicki A, Winkler B, Irwin CE Jr, Schachter J. Differencesin biologic maturation, sexual behavior, and sexuallytransmitted disease between adolescents with and withoutcervical intraepithelial neoplasia. 1989; 115: 487-93.

16. Leiden WA, Manos MM, Geiger AM, Weinmann S,Mouchawar J, Bischoff K. Cervical cancer in women withcomprehensive health care acess: attributable factors in thescreening process. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005; 97(9): 675-83.

17. Liu S, Semenciw R, Mao Y. Cervical cancer: the increasingincidence of adenocarcinoma and adenosquamouscarcinoma in younger women. CMAJ. 2001; 164(8): 1151–2.

18. Instituto Nacional do câncer. Viva mulher. Câncer do colo doútero: Informações técnico-gerenciais e ações desenvolvidas. Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Nacional do Câncer; 2002.

19. Guimarães EM, Pires J, Peli LB, Aguiar RSF. Evolução dedisplasia leve diagnosticada por citopatologia: Analiseretrospectiva de 155 casos. J Bras Patol. 1999; 35: 136-40.

20. Wright JD, Davila RM, Pinto KR, Merritt DF, Gibb RK, RaderJS, Mutch DG, Gao F, Powell MA. Cervical dysplasia inadolescents. Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 106(1): 115-20.

21. Solomon D, Davey DD, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O’Connor D,Prey M, Raab S, Sherman M, Wilbur D, Wright T Jr, Young N;Forum Group Members; Bethesda 2001 Workshop. The 2001 Bethesda system: terminology for reporting results of cervicalcytology. JAMA 2002; 287: 2114-9.

22. WHO (World Health Organization). Cytological screening in thecontrol of cervical cancer: technical guidelines. Genebra; 1988.

23. Linos A, Riza E. Comparisons of cervical cancer programmesin the European Union. Eur J Cancer 2000; 36: 2260-5.

24. Mayor S. NHS cervical screening programme to introduceliquid based cytology. BMJ. 2003; 327(7421): 948.

25. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria Nacional deAssistência à Saúde. Instituto Nacional do Câncer. Estimativas da incidência e mortalidade por câncer no Brasil2000. Rio de janeiro: INCA; 2000.

26. Nascimento CM, Eluf-Neto J, Rego RA. Cobertura do testede Papanicolaou no Município de São Paulo e característicasdas mulheres que realizaram o teste. Bol Ofic Sanit Panam.1996; 121: 491-9.

27. Pinho AA, Fatores associados à realização do teste de Papanicolaou entre mulheres em idade reprodutiva nomunicípio de São Paulo. [dissertação de Mestrado]. SãoPaulo: Faculdade de Saúde Pública; 2002.

28. Vetrano G, Lombardi G, Di Leone G, Parisi A, Scardamaglia P,Pate G, Verrico M, Corosu R. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia:risk factors for persistence and recurrence in adolescents.Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2007;28(3):189-92.

29. Copel K, Paul C, Cox B. An evaluation of the National CervicalScreening Programme Otago site. N Z Med. 2000; 113: 48-51.

30. Bano F, Kolhe S, Zamblera D, Jolaoso A, Folayan O, Page L,Norton J. Cervical screening in under 25s: a high-risk young population. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007; doi: 101016/j.ejogrb.2007.08.020

31. Yamamoto LSU, Saito S, Pereira SMM, Utagawa ML,Longatto-Filho A. Uterine cytopathology in a public healthlaboratory: impact from 20 years data (1984-2003). Rev Inst Adolfo Lutz. 2006; 65(2): 141-5.

32. Berstrom C, Sparen P, Adami HO. Trends in cancer of thecervix uteri in Sweden following cytological screening. BJCancer. 1999; 81: 159-66.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2008 Instituto Adolfo Lutz Journal

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.