Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
C Sherlaw-Johnson a Clinical Operational Research Unit, Department
of Mathematics, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, b Division of
Pathology, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre,
Nottingham NG7 2UH
Correspondence to: Dr Sherlaw-Johnson
c.sherlaw-johnson{at}ucl.ac.uk
| |
Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Objective:
To evaluate the impact of policies for
removing women before the recommended age of 64 from screening
programmes for cervical cancer in the United Kingdom.
Design:
A mathematical model of the clinical course of
precancerous lesions which accounts for the influence of infection with
the human papillomavirus, the effects of screening on the progression
of disease, and the accuracy of the testing procedures. Two policies
are compared: one in which women are withdrawn from the programme if
their current smear is negative and they have a recent history of
regular, negative results and one in which women are withdrawn if their
current smear test is negative and a simultaneous test is negative for
exposure to high risk types of human papillomavirus.
Setting:
United Kingdom cervical screening programme.
Main outcome measures:
The incidence of invasive
cervical cancer and the use of resources.
Results:
Early withdrawal of selected women from the programme is predicted to give rise to resource savings of up to 25%
for smear tests and 18% for colposcopies when withdrawal occurs from
age 50, the youngest age considered in the study. An increase in the
incidence of invasive cervical cancer, by up to 2 cases/100 000
women each year is predicted. Testing for human papillomavirus
infection to determine which women should be withdrawn from the
programme makes little difference to outcome.
Conclusions:
This model systematically analyses the
consequences of screening options using available data and the clinical
course of precancerous lesions. If further audit studies confirm the model's forecasts, a policy of early withdrawal might be considered. This would be likely to release substantial resources which could be
channelled into other aspects of health care or may be more effectively
used within the cervical screening programme to counteract the possible
increase in cancer incidence that early withdrawal might bring.
|
Key messages
|
| |
Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The UK's national coordinating network for cervical screening recommends that all women between the ages of 21 and 64 attend for screening once every 3 to 5 years.1 It has been suggested, however, that some women could be withdrawn from the screening programme before age 642 because although over half of all cases of invasive cervical cancer occur among women aged over 50,3 few have been found in women with histories of regular smear tests with normal results.2 Additionally, there is evidence that women with certain types of human papillomavirus infection are at high risk of developing high grade precancerous lesions.4-6 The risk of acquiring new human papillomavirus infection is believed to decrease as women get older, so postmenopausal women without previous human papillomavirus infection may have little risk of developing invasive cancer.7 Therefore, by taking account of recent smear test results or the results of human papillomavirus tests, a sizeable population of older women at low risk of cervical disease might be identified, and their early removal from the screening programme would have little impact on the incidence of invasive cancer. 2 7 Such measures might also release valuable health service resources in terms of screening and follow up tests and reduce needless anxiety among women.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect on resource savings
and on the incidence of invasive cancer of strategies for the early
withdrawal from the screening programme of women at low risk of
cervical cancer. We used a mathematical model which we have developed
and have used in previous studies.
8 9
Trials of screening
are expensive, and it takes many years before results are known, by
which time technological advances may have lessened the relevance of
their findings. Trials are also hampered by the difficulty of
evaluating long term outcomes and the restricted number of alternative
screening policies that can be compared. Moreover, it is not feasible
to assess directly the potential effects on the incidence of invasive
cancer and instead surrogate end points would need to be used.
Mathematical modelling provides an alternative means of investigation,
and is a comparatively quick method for assessing a range of screening
options. Although dependent on the validity of the assumptions made, it
has a useful role in complementing the results of trials and audit studies.
| |
Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The main elements of our model are the clinical course of the
disease, age related mortality from all causes, the accuracy of the
screening tests, and the clinical management policy adopted for women
with positive test results. Our methods rely on stochastic analysis
that is, we use methods from probability theory to represent the considerable variability inherent in the screening process.
The clinical course of the disease and the development of invasive cancer are the result of a sequence of transitions through three grades of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. We assume that most cases of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia are preceded by human papillomavirus infection,4 although the possibility that neoplasia can occur without prior infection is also considered. The human papillomavirus is classified into low risk and high risk types. The high risk types (16, 18, 31, and 33) are more strongly associated with high grade precancerous lesions and invasive cancer, and the low risk types (6 and 11) are associated with low grade disease. This model of the clinical course is stochastic in that the transition between disease states is assumed to be a chance process with each transition made with a specified probability. Starting with a cohort of women who are free from disease and using age related death rates from other causes, the model predicts the number of women in each disease category at all later times. If women are screened then the chances of detecting any precancerous lesion will depend on the accuracy of the screening test. Successful detection and treatment of precancerous lesions is modelled by assuming that women revert to being disease free. Screening occurs at different ages depending on the programme and the policy for the follow up of abnormal results. Options for early withdrawal from the screening programme are included.
Estimates used to calibrate the model have been derived from the medical literature. The role of human papillomavirus infection in relation to the development and progression of premalignant conditions has been studied.6 Sources used to estimate parameters used by the model have been described.9 Because of the uncertainty in some of these parameters, particularly in relation to the clinical course of precancerous disease, we have investigated the consequences of using different values for the same parameter. For example, we have varied the rate that disease progresses in the absence of any external intervention by 20%. The prevalence of human papillomavirus infection in older women has been little studied, and our estimates for incidence rates are derived from a study in which the oldest women were aged 50 to 54.10 Beyond the age of 50, we have assumed that the incidence of infection declines gradually. To reflect the uncertainty in this assumption we have also investigated outcomes if the incidence of infection was such that its prevalence among women aged over 50 were 50% lower.
We have considered a programme of screening every 3 years starting at the age of 21. Mildly abnormal and borderline results are followed up according to recommendations for repeat cytology in the United Kingdom.1 We have also compared a policy of screening all women up to the age of 64 with two policies for early withdrawal. Policy 1 is based on the work of Van Wijngaarden and Duncan2: a woman is withdrawn from screening if she is over a specified age, her smear result is negative, and her previous three smears were negative and taken regularly three years apart. Policy 2 is based on Schiffman and Sherman7: a woman is withdrawn if she is over a specified age, her smear result is negative, and a test for human papillomavirus DNA is negative for high risk types.
These policies have been investigated with the specified age for the earliest possible recommended withdrawal ranging from 50 to 60.
We have assumed that 85% of eligible women are screened, similar to
current coverage rates in the United Kingdom,11 and that
this is the same for all ages at which women are screened. Currently,
coverage within the United Kingdom is higher among younger women than
older women but is expected to become more evenly distributed over
time. This study analyses situations in which there is a more even
distribution. Women who do not attend for screening are assumed to have
the same risk of acquiring human papillomavirus infection and
developing premalignant lesions as those who do,12
although non-attenders implicitly have a much higher risk of their
disease progressing undetected. We have also considered the effects of
assuming a 20% increase in the risk of acquiring human papillomavirus
infection among non-attenders.
| |
Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The predicted annual incidence of invasive cervical cancer and the use of resources under different policies for the early withdrawal of women from screening are shown in table 1. These predictions are per 100 000 screened and unscreened women in the female population. Reducing the age of the earliest withdrawal increases the incidence of invasive cancer. Slightly smaller increases are predicted to occur if policy 2 is used. Both policies give substantial and similar reductions in resource use in terms of smear tests and colposcopies, although policy 2 requires additional testing for human papillomavirus infection. In figure 1 the predicted incidence of invasive cancer under each policy is plotted against the number of required smear tests. The increase in the number of cases of invasive cancer for every 1000 smear tests saved by withdrawing women early is shown in figure 2. This ratio increases with a decreasing age of earliest withdrawal and is greater under policy 1.
|
|
|
|
With a policy of withdrawing women from the age of 50 the implications
of different assumptions about the clinical course of the disease, the
prevalence of detected human papillomavirus infection, and of a
reduction in cytological accuracy are shown in table 2. Altering these
assumptions has little effect on the number of smear tests and human
papillomavirus tests. There are larger changes in the number of
colposcopies required yet the percentage reductions caused by early
withdrawal are the same as those made under the baseline assumptions.
There are also changes in the incidence of invasive cancer but the
percentage increases caused by early withdrawal are similar to those
made under the baseline assumptions.
| |
Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The impact of early withdrawal
This study has investigated two policies for removing women from a
cervical screening programme before age 64. Because there is a
possibility that new disease may be contracted by women who are removed
from the programme early, or that existing disease may be missed by
their final smear test, both of these policies are predicted to
increase the incidence of invasive cancer. In the extreme case, in
which women are withdrawn at the age of 50, the incidence is predicted
to increase by around two extra cases per 100 000 women, or about 600 new cases each year in the United Kingdom. These policies would reduce
annual rates of smear testing and colposcopy because the investigations
with negative results that occur among women who are regularly screened
and are aged between 50 and 64 would be avoided. These reductions in
resource use are of the order of 25% for smear tests and 18% for
colposcopies, or approximately 1.3 million smear tests and 11 400
colposcopies each year. Both policies would also reduce the
psychological stress associated with screening. There is little difference between the two policies in the increase in the incidence of
invasive cancer and the number of smear tests and colposcopies required.
Assumptions of the model
The feasibility of withdrawing women early from screening
programmes will depend on a number of factors for which complete
information is not available: the clinical course of the disease in
older women, the probability of high risk women satisfying the
withdrawal criteria, and the rate of false negative results. To reflect
some of the uncertainty about the clinical course we have varied the
progression rates by 20% and assessed the changes in results. This has
little impact on the comparative effectiveness of the two policies. To
reflect some of the uncertainty over the accuracy of cytology, and to
assess the implications among centres with higher rates of false
positive and false negative results, we independently reduced the
sensitivity of cytology and increased the rate of false positives by
30%. In neither case was there much impact on the comparative
effectiveness of the two policies.
Human papillomavirus testing
Recent evidence about the link between human papillomavirus
infection and cervical cancer
4 5 16
has suggested that
testing for infection within cervical screening programmes, particularly as a triage measure for women presenting with mildly abnormal smears, could be effective.
17 18
The
identification of older women at low risk of developing precancerous
cervical lesions is another possible use for this technology.
Previous studies
Van Wijngaarden and Duncan studied the screening histories of all
women aged over 50 in the Dundee and Angus health districts who
presented with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or invasive cervical
cancer over four years.
2 19
In 47 women with invasive
cancer and 40 cases of intraepithelial neoplasia occurring in women
aged over 50, only one microinvasive cancer and one case of cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia grade III were found in women who would have
satisfied the authors' criteria for early withdrawal. The rest had
inadequate screening histories. Cruickshank et al studied the smear
test histories of all women aged 50 to 60 in the Grampian region who
presented with significant cytological abnormalities over five
years.20 Of the 9000 women who had adequate smear
histories before age 50, and who would have satisfied the criteria for
early withdrawal, one case of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade
III and one of invasive cervical cancer were found. The results of both
these studies agree with our forecasts that early removal from
screening would lead to a small increase in the incidence of cervical
cancer. These studies are steps towards answering the question about
withdrawing women aged between 50 and 60 and towards more rigorous
audit studies in which the screening histories of women with cervical
disease are compared with those from a control group.21
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
The authors thank Dr Ian Duncan from Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
Contributors: CS-J contributed to the development of the model and devised the software for carrying out the calculations. He was also responsible for calibration, testing, and sensitivity analysis, and is guarantor for the paper. SG contributed to the mathematical development of the model and the processes of calibration, testing, and sensitivity analysis. DJ contributed to the conceptual development of the model, advised on appropriate withdrawal criteria and other clinical issues, and assisted with the review of appropriate data sources.
Funding: Funds for this project are covered by a Department of Health Core Grant (No 1212226).
Competing interests: DJ was invited by Digene to attend a symposium, which was organised by the European Research Organisation on Genital Infection and Neoplasia, on testing for the human papillomavirus.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
(Accepted 9 November 1998)
Geoff Royston NHS Executive, Leeds LS2
7UE
groyston{at}doh.gov.uk
Sherlaw-Johnson and colleagues raise some important issues
about methods for assessing screening programmes and, indeed, any healthcare intervention. Does the standard approach for assessment Experimentation is an investigatory method whose strengths, especially
in its gold standard, the randomised control trial, are well known. It
frequently offers the most reliable route to establishing the impact of
a healthcare intervention, particularly in areas without a strong
theoretical underpinning, which are all too common in health care. Yet
experiments have their weaknesses. Trials can be expensive, can present
ethical difficulties, and can take a long time Modelling, on the other hand, has real strengths in these areas. It can
be inexpensive, free of ethical concerns over treatment allocation, and
fast: a computer model can simulate in minutes a trial lasting years. A
model can be "tuned" to emulate different population subgroups or
even individuals. Similarly, it can be used to test a large variety of
options for varying the intervention under examination. Of course
modelling too has its weak points. Failings in model theory or logic,
inaccuracies in model parameters, or omission of key factors can all
invalidate results.
2 3
Modelling has been applied widely in epidemiology, treatment
assessment, and healthcare management.4 It has been used
to assess breast, cervical, and other cancer screening
programmes
5 6
; to assess screening for genetic defects
such as cystic fibrosis7; and to assess screening for
infectious disease, notably HIV,8 and non-infectious
disease, such as diabetic retinopathy.9
The use of modelling in the assessment of screening programmes
provides a particularly good example of how the strengths and weaknesses of the experimental and modelling approaches are largely complementary, and how these methods can be brought together to good
effect. In Sherlaw-Johnson et al's model, for example, field experimentation and observation were required to establish key parameters, such as the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests or the
natural rate of disease progression. Modelling was used to discover how
the various components of disease progression and detection
interrelated and how their effects unfolded over time, illustrating the
power of the modelling approach in bringing together disparate pieces
of information into a unified framework. Modelling also allowed
sensitivity tests on the effect of uncertainty in key parameters, such
as diagnostic accuracy, to be investigated. Other modelling work on
screening for cervical cancer has investigated the effect of changes in
the screening interval, a parameter that is time consuming to
investigate using an experimental
approach.10
Modelling has some less obvious benefits too, as operational
researchers and other analysts active in using this approach have
discovered. The process of constructing the model promotes systematic
thought and generates insights about the nature of its components and
how they interact, which may help identify areas in which
empirical research is most needed, help generate new epidemiological or
clinical hypotheses, and help produce novel ideas for useful
interventions. Modelling can thus support systemic or "joined up"
thinking.11 The availability of user friendly computer
modelling tools makes the approach more accessible to a wider range of
users and often allows a shift of emphasis from mathematical virtuosity
towards clinical or managerial relevance.
There is an opportunity for rapprochement in the debate over trials and
modelling. Methods for assessing healthcare interventions, such as
screening programmes, no less than the interventions themselves, need
to be effective and efficient
the experimental trial
have a competitor in the mathematical model?
even to the extent that
the intervention under investigation has been superseded before the
trial ends. It can be difficult to extrapolate from study findings
about aggregated groups of people to subgroups, let alone to individual
patients.1 Trials can generally test only a small number
of intervention options.
needs which are most likely to be met
through a hybrid approach. Both methods have much to offer and, in
proportions appropriate to the situation, both should be used.
![]()
References
© BMJ 1999
Read all Rapid Responses