Uptake of liquid-based cytology as an adjunct to conventional cytology for cervical screening in NSW, Australia: a cross-sectional and population-based cohort analysis

BMC Public Health

Karen Canfell²  Bruce K Armstrong¹  Nayyereh Aminisani² 

[1]Sydney School of Public Heath, University of Sydney, City Road, Camperdown, NSW, Australia

[2](Past affiliations) Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Woolloomooloo, Australia

关键词: Australia;    Liquid based cytology;    Pap smear;    Cervical cytology;    Cervical screening;   

Others  :  1161428
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-13-1196

 received in 2012-10-12, accepted in 2013-12-10,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Cervical screening is currently recommended every two years in sexually active women aged 18-20 to 69 years in Australia. Direct replacement of conventional cytology with liquid-based cytology (LBC) for cervical screening was rejected for public funding on grounds of cost-effectiveness, first in 2002 and again in 2009, but LBC is performed as an adjunct to conventional cytology in women who elect to pay. The objective of this study was to describe prevalence and predictors of use of LBC in Australia’s most populous state, New South Wales (NSW).

Methods

We performed cross-sectional and population-based cohort analyses using data from the state Pap Test Register in NSW. We calculated the age-adjusted proportion of women aged 20-69 years electing to have adjunctive LBC over the period from 2006-2010. We also calculated the fully-adjusted odds ratios for the association between subsequent LBC use and age, socioeconomic status, place of residence, previous cytological history and provider type in a cohort of 360,247 women who had an index cervical cytology test in 2006–8.

Results

Uptake of LBC varied between 29.7% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 29.5-30.0%) in 2006/7 and 26.6% (95% CI: 26.4-26.9%) in 2009/10. LBC was more likely to be used in women aged 30-44 years, if it had been used previously (OR13.58, 95% CI: 13.33-13.84), if the previous test result was abnormal (OR2.62, 95% CI:2.53-2.72) or unsatisfactory (OR2.37, 95% CI:2.27-3.47), or if a gynaecologist requested the test (OR1.50, 95% CI:1.46-1.54). Uptake was least for women in remote/very remote areas (OR0.68; 95% CI:0.57-0.80 referenced to those in major cities) and in lower socioeconomic groups (OR 0.41, 95% CI:0.40-0.42 for lowest versus highest SES quintile).

Conclusion

In the current environment in NSW, Australia, in which public funding for LBC has not been available, adjunctive uptake of LBC depends strongly on a woman’s age, her screening history and socioeconomic factors. These findings provide important context for a current review of technologies used in the National Cervical Screening Program in Australia.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Aminisani et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]National Health and Medical Research Council: Screening to Prevent Cervical Cancer: Guidelines for the Management of Women with Screen Detected Abnormalities. Canberra, ACT: Australia: National Health and Medical Research Council; 2005.
• [2]Sasieni P, Fielder H, Rose B: Liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology. Lancet 2006, 367(9521):1481. author reply 1482–3
• [3]Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, et al.: Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008, 111(1):167-177.
• [4]Medical Services Advisory Committee: Automation-Assisted and Liquid-Based Cytology for Cervical Cancer Screening. MSAC Reference 1122. Australia. Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, ACT; 2009.
• [5]Davey E, d’Assuncao J, Irwig L, et al.: Accuracy of reading liquid based cytology slides using the ThinPrep imager compared with conventional cytology: prospective study. BMJ 2007, 335(7609):31.
• [6]Roberts JM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch RC, et al.: A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep imaging system. Diagn Cytopathol 2007, 35(2):96-102.
• [7]Schiffman M, Solomon D: Screening and prevention methods for cervical cancer. JAMA 2009, 302(16):1809-1810.
• [8]Medical Services Advisory Committee: Liquid Based Cytology for Cervical Screening. MSAC Reference 12a, Assessment Report 2002. Canberra, ACT: Australia: Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health; 2002.
• [9]Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Cervical Screening in Australia 2008–2009. Cat. No. CAN 57. Canberra, ACT: Australia: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2011.
• [10]Canfell K, Sitas F, Beral V: Cervical cancer in Australia and the United Kingdom: comparison of screening policy and uptake, and cancer incidence and mortality. Med J Aust 2006, 185(9):482-486.
• [11]National cervical screening program renewal 2012. http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/ncsp-renewal webcite
• [12]NSW Pap test register 2012. http://www.cancerinstitute.org.au/data-and-statistics/cancer-registries/nsw-pap-test-register webcite
• [13]Cervical Cancer Screening in New South Wales: Annual Statistical Report 2007–08. Sydney, NSW: Australia: Cancer Institute NSW; 2011.
• [14]Remoteness structure Australian bureau of statistics 2012. http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/remoteness+structure webcite
• [15]Australian Bureau of Statistics: Information Paper: An Introduction to Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) 2006, Cat. no. 2039.0. Canberra, ACT: Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2006.
• [16]Raab SS, Grzybicki DM, Hart AR, Kiely S, Andrew-JaJa C, Scioscia E Jr: Willingness to pay for new Papanicolaou test technologies. Am J Clin Pathol 2002, 117(4):524-533.
• [17]National Centre for Health Statistics: Liquid-Based Cytology Test use by Office-Based Physicians: United States, 2006–2007. no 40 Hyattsville, MD:United States: National Centre for Health Statistics; 2011. [National Health Statistics Reports]
• [18]Brotherton JM, Fridman M, May CL, et al.: Early effect of the HPV vaccination programme on cervical abnormalities in Victoria, Australia: an ecological study. Lancet 2011, 377(9783):2085-2092.