Disclosing the results of the invasive cervical cancer review to patients: a survey of lead colposcopists across England.

OBJECTIVE: To survey lead colposcopists to explore the extent to which patients are currently being invited to discuss the results of their invasive cervical cancer review, the reasons why this might not be happening and the clinician experience. METHODS: An online survey was sent to lead colposcopists across England. They were asked whether they offered the review to patients, if they did how they did so and what their experience was and if they did not, why not. RESULTS: There was a 68.5% (N = 122) response rate, with 53% of respondents currently offering the review meetings. Patients were predominantly invited to the review meeting face to face and clinicians' experiences were mixed with a variety of positive and negative aspects of the meetings given. For those clinicians not currently offering a review meeting, there were a variety of reasons: 25% cited a lack of awareness of the guidelines, 19% time constraints, 12% a fear of causing additional distress and 2% a fear of litigation. Open-ended responses demonstrated a considerable amount of misunderstanding about the process. CONCLUSION: Despite National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme guidelines, not all clinicians offer review meetings to patients and those who do offer them do not always offer them to all women. Patient research needs to be conducted to explore the value of the meetings further, and there is a need to do more to engage clinicians in the process.

Differential trends in the rising incidence of endometrial cancer by type: data from a UK population-based registry from 1994 to 2006.

BACKGROUND: Endometrial cancer is the most common gynaecological cancer in the western world, the incidence increasing in the United Kingdom by over 40% since 1993. Two types of endometrial cancer exist - oestrogen-dependent type 1 with good prognosis and non-oestrogen-dependent type 2 with poor prognosis. The histopathological distribution of the increase in endometrial cancer is unknown. This study investigates the observed incidence trends of the two types, the age, stage, and socioeconomic distribution of this increase and survival outcome. METHODS: Data were analysed from 6867 women with endometrial cancer registered between 1994 and 2006, at a UK population-based cancer registry. RESULTS: Increased endometrial cancer incidence is confined to type 1 cancers with a significant increase in age standardised incidence rate (ASR) from 12.0 per 100,000 (confidence interval (CI) 10.7-13.2) in 1994 to 16.3 per 100,000 (CI 14.9-17.7), P<0.001 in 2006, while ASR of type 2 cancer changed from 2.5 per 100,000 (CI 2.0-3.1) in 1994 to 2.2 per 100,000 (CI 1.7-2.7) in 2006, which was not statistically significant P>0.05. Increase in type 1 cancer is most marked in age groups 60-69 years (P<0.001) and 70-79 years (P<0.001) and distributed equally among socioeconomic quintiles. While outcome for type 1 cancer has improved, 1-year survival in type 2 cancer is unchanged from 73.1% in 1994 to 74.3%, P=0.089 and 5-year survival decreased from 55.1% to 40.9%, P=0.001. CONCLUSION: Increased incidence in endometrial cancer is confined to type 1 cancers, seen most in the 60-79 age groups and across all socioeconomic quintiles. Survival in type 2 cancer has decreased significantly. Urgent research is needed to investigate prevention strategies in type 1 and improve therapy in type 2 cancers.

Implementing the national invasive cervical cancer audit: a local perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To monitor the effectiveness of the cervical screening programme and identify suboptimal management in order to improve patient care. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: A university hospital serving a population of 1 million people. POPULATION: All women diagnosed with a cervical cancer between 2003 and 2006. METHODS: Analysis of data from invasive cervical cancer reviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Categorisation of cervical cancer cases according to the Invasive Cervical Cancer Audit classification. RESULTS: Eighty-seven women were diagnosed with cervical cancer during the 3-year study period. The 'lapsed attender' group accounted for the greatest number of cases (30%), followed by screen detected (26%), interval cancers (13%), never attended (12%), lost to follow-up (10%) and never invited (9%). Women who had never attended for cytology presented with higher stage disease, stage-II or above, compared with the screen-detected cases: 60% were stage II or above, compared with 13.0%, Chi-square P = 0.018. The most frequently identified screening programme problem was patient compliance, which was determined to be the principle contributing factor in 39 cases (45%) and a secondary factor in a further ten cases. CONCLUSIONS: The categorisation of cervical cancer cases has the potential of yielding invaluable information for improving programme effectiveness. Patient compliance is the greatest challenge to the screening programme, and the need for regular screening and adherence to follow-up regimens needs to be reinforced in order to maximise the efficacy of the national screening programme.

Implementing the national invasive cervical cancer audit: correlation between local and regional classification.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of information recorded regionally and locally on the screening classification of cervical cancer cases using the national invasive cervical cancer audit categories. METHODS: Comparison of the audit categorization of all cervical cancer cases diagnosed at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire (UHNS) between January 2003 and December 2006 with the classification assigned by the West Midlands Cervical Screening Quality Assurance Reference Centre (WMQARC). RESULTS: Eighty-seven cases of cervical cancer were diagnosed during the three-year study period. There was agreement between the UHNS and WMQARC classification of cases in 52 cases (59.7%), moderate agreement κ = 0.51 (95% CI 0.39-0.63). The greatest disparity was seen in the classification of lapsed attenders, with nine of the 26 cases categorized as 'lapsed' by the UHNS being assigned to the 'lost to follow-up' category by WMQARC. Three cases were deemed unclassifiable by WMQARC using the national classification since the women were over the age of 70 years but had previously been enrolled in the screening programme, and currently there is no national category for these women. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate and consistent classification of invasive cervical cancer cases is essential in order to obtain useful information on the efficiency of the national screening programme at a local, regional and national level. The use of a national algorithm would provide reassurance that all data used in the national evaluation of the NHS Cervical Screening Programme are consistent, meaning that robust conclusions could then be drawn from the data.

Cervical screening programmes: can automation help? Evidence from systematic reviews, an economic analysis and a simulation modelling exercise applied to the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding automated image analysis to cervical screening programmes. DATA SOURCES: Searching of all major electronic databases to the end of 2000 was supplemented by a detailed survey for unpublished UK literature. METHOD: Four systematic reviews were conducted according to recognised guidance. The review of 'clinical effectiveness' included studies assessing reproducibility and impact on health outcomes and processes in addition to evaluations of test accuracy. A discrete event simulation model was developed, although the economic evaluation ultimately relied on a cost-minimisation analysis. RESULTS: The predominant finding from the systematic reviews was the very limited amount of rigorous primary research. None of the included studies refers to the only commercially available automated image analysis device in 2002, the AutoPap Guided Screening (GS) System. The results of the included studies were debatably most compatible with automated image analysis being equivalent in test performance to manual screening. Concerning process, there was evidence that automation does lead to reductions in average slide processing times. In the PRISMATIC trial this was reduced from 10.4 to 3.9 minutes, a statistically significant and practically important difference. The economic evaluation tentatively suggested that the AutoPap GS System may be efficient. The key proviso is that credible data become available to support that the AutoPap GS System has test performance and processing times equivalent to those obtained for PAPNET. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is still insufficient to recommend implementation of automated image analysis systems. The priority for action remains further research, particularly the 'clinical effectiveness' of the AutoPap GS System. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of introducing automation alongside other approaches is also a priority.