High-risk groups and cervical cancer
J. Macgregor
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.281.6251.1352-d
1980-11-15
British Medical Journal
Abstract:Screening for cervical cancer continues to cause controversy despite its long history. In many ways the test matches up to the ideal criteria for screening proposed by Wilson and Jungnerl-in particular, cervical cancer has a recognisable latent stage and treatment is effective. Since, however, no control trial was done early on, how best to apply the procedure has been left to a futile debate between "evangelists" and "snails."2 There is just enough in the jigsaw of information to make withdrawal of screening unethical, but insufficient for unassailable recommendations. The arguments arise principally because of the failure to distinguish decision making for individual patients (by the clinical evangelist) from decision making for communities (by the policy snails). The decisions on the most effective use of health service resources for the benefit of the community are usually made on inadequate data. The basic principle, however, is that the policy should, firstly, benefit the community as a whole and then, secondly, the individual, implying that the goal for screening will most often be less than 100°0 detection. How far less and at what cost in illness is a matter of judgment. The size of the benefit for the community from screening for cervical cancer may be assessed from mortality. In 1963, for example, 2465.women of all ages died from cervical cancer; 2153 died in 1978. The total death rate since 1970 has shown a modest downward trend. There has been a steady reduction in mortality for women aged 45-54 and, until 1976, for women aged 35-44. In part these declines may have been a result of screening; but, with no relaxation of screening, the rates in 1977 and 1978 for the younger women rose to the 1970 levels. Mortality in women aged 25-34 has risen since,1970, but the actual numbers of deaths per year have been small: about 35 during the '60s, rising to 93 in 1978. Between 1970 and 1976 the number of deaths in the under-25-year-olds rose from five to nine a year but the total dropped to two and one in the next two years. The distribution of the screening effort in England, even allowing for lead time, has failed to reflect the magnitude of mortality in each age group. In 1977 (and previous years were similar) 2-5 million cytological tests3 were carried out, of which 24°% were for women under the age of 25, in whom less than 0 50 of deaths occurred, and 330% of tests were on women aged 25-34, in whom less than 15%o of deaths occurred. If resources are restricted, is this a reasonable way of spending them ? Expenditure could clearly be reduced by screening fewer women and selecting only those at high risk. Hakama and his colleagues4 5 have examined this possibility using data from the Finnish mass screening systemn. All Finnish women at an age of high risk (roughly between 30 and 54) are invited to screening every five years. On the first visit information is collected on the known risk factors for cervical cancer. The group ofwomen with bleeding or with class II-V smears without positive histological results were found to make up less than 10% of the responders but accounted subsequently for 20400% of the invasive carcinomas. Hakama et al suggested that these women might be screened selectively more often than the standard interval of five years, a recommendation which would increase the cost of the programme-in England it might mean roughly 30 000 extra smears each year if the selective screening were done every two and a half years instead of every five. An alternative is to set an arbitrary target for detection. At the community level this might be 90% of all carcinomas. Again, Hakama et a15 have examined the Finnish data, to see whether a high-risk group could be defined which would substantially reduce the size of the group requiring screening. By applying statistical scoring methods to data on the levels of each woman's risk factors at first screening they found that about half of those with all non-normal lesions-and of those with frankly invasive carcinoma or with dysplasia gravis or carcinoma in situ-were in the 15% ofthe screened population with the highest scores. Important risk factors were age, parity, cytological diagnosis, and coital and postmenopausal bleeding. Nevertheless, not until the high-risk group was defined as the 70% of the whole screened population with the highest risk scores did it include 9000 of cases. The size of the high-risk group could be substantially reduced while still maintaining a 90°,0 detection rate only if the risk factors were associated with relative risk of 15 or more, a very unlikely event. The conclusion must be that the concept of high-risk screening for cervical cancer does not seem valid, partly because of the penalty paid in missed cases and partly because of the effort required to determine who should be excluded. Knox6 has calculated the frequency of screening needed to detect cervical cancer before it becomes inoperable. Making a number ofassumptions, including the length oftime a detectable lesion takes to become inoperable and that the cytology service could handle no more smears than currently, he then showed that by carrying out the first smear at age 35 and repeating the test roughly every five years until 80 years of age 7700 of all deaths might be prevented. Given the mortality pattern, the experience of screening systems, the application ofour limited knowledge ofthe natural history of cervical cancer to models for the delivery of health services, community restraint and clinical demands might best be balanced by the recommendations published three years ago in the BMJ.7 Screening should begin at 25 for women presenting for contraception, pregnancy, or venereal disease, or at 30 if they were sexually active and had not been tested. The interval between smears should be five years (three years after 35 if resources permit); and screening could cease at 70. If those recommendations were applied to every eligible woman mortality ought to decline by well over half. At present too much effort is spent in trying to detect cervical cancer in too young an age group where, even with 100% coverage and effectiveness, fewer than 10 of over 2000 deaths would be prevented.