Technological advances: Have they improved standards? Review of outcomes from the Welsh cervical screening programme.
Cervical Screening Wales
HPV testing
Performance Indicators
liquid-based cytology
role of technology
Journal
Journal of medical screening
ISSN: 1475-5793
Titre abrégé: J Med Screen
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9433359
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2021
06 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
18
4
2020
medline:
11
9
2021
entrez:
18
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Introduction of new technologies into cervical screening programmes has allowed more efficient programmes with less resources. We present an overview of screening technologies introduced into the Cervical Screening Wales programme and their evolution over time. Data from the programme's statistical report were used to evaluate its performance over a 17-year period between 2001/02 and 2017/18. The introduction of liquid-based cytology has had a substantial impact on reducing inadequate sample rates and on increasing the positive predictive value of cytology. Inadequate rates have increased following the implementation of human papilloma virus testing as a triage test for cytology. Further knock-on effects on standard reporting ranges are expected following the introduction of human papilloma virus testing as the primary screening test. New performance standards have been introduced to better reflect the performance of the programme at a time when disease prevalence is expected to fall as women vaccinated against human papilloma virus reach screening age. Improvements to this cervical cancer screening programme as illustrated through performance indicator ranges suggest a major role played by technology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32299280
doi: 10.1177/0969141320918270
pmc: PMC8166403
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
80-87Subventions
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C8162/A16892
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Br J Cancer. 2010 Mar 2;102(5):933-9
pubmed: 20104226
Acta Cytol. 2019;63(3):206-214
pubmed: 30947186
Int J Cancer. 2019 Jun 15;144(12):2964-2971
pubmed: 30536935
Cytopathology. 1995 Oct;6(5):301-3
pubmed: 8785367
J Med Screen. 2012 Jun;19(2):89-93
pubmed: 22653575
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986 Sep 13;293(6548):659-64
pubmed: 3092971
Cytopathology. 2008 Jun;19(3):137-57
pubmed: 18494998
Cancer Epidemiol. 2015 Dec;39 Suppl 1:S139-52
pubmed: 26596722
Lancet Oncol. 2010 Mar;11(3):249-57
pubmed: 20089449
BMJ. 2019 Feb 6;364:l240
pubmed: 30728133
Cal West Med. 1943 Aug;59(2):121-2
pubmed: 18746585
N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 2;360(14):1385-94
pubmed: 19339719
Acta Cytol. 2011;55(1):54-6
pubmed: 21135523
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Jul;211(1):127-132
pubmed: 29792737
Cytopathology. 1995 Apr;6(2):95-9
pubmed: 7795170
Lancet. 1987 May 30;1(8544):1247-9
pubmed: 2884378
Vaccine. 2008 Mar 14;26 Suppl 1:A16-23
pubmed: 18642468
Arch Med Res. 2009 Aug;40(6):478-85
pubmed: 19853188
Cytopathology. 2012 Dec;23(6):360-70
pubmed: 23173805
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1985 May 25;290(6481):1543-6
pubmed: 3924157
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2019 Nov;17(11):2265-2300
pubmed: 31188154