Underestimated Cervical Cancer among Women over 65 Years Old: Is It Time to Revise the Screening Target Age Group?

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To compare cytological and histological results from women > 64 years old who followed the Brazilian national cervical cancer screening guidelines with those who did not.

Methods The present observational retrospective study analyzed 207 abnormal cervical smear results from women > 64 years old in a mid-sized city in Brazil over 14 years. All results were reported according to the Bethesda System. The women were divided into those who followed the screening guidelines and those who did not.

Results Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology results were found in 128 (62.2%) cases. Of these, 112 (87.5%) had repeated cytology with positive results. The other 79 (38.1%) with abnormal results should have been referred to colposcopy and biopsy. Out of 41 (51.9%) biopsied women, 23 (29.1%) had a confirmed diagnosis of neoplasia or precursor lesion. In contrast, among the 78 (37.7%) biopsied patients, 40 (51.3%) followed the guideline recommendations, with 9 (22.5%) positive biopsies. Of the 38 (48.7%) women who did not follow the guidelines, there were 24 (63.1%) positive results. Women who did not follow the guidelines demonstrated higher chances of cancer and precursor lesions (odds ratio [OR]: 5.904; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.188–15.932; p = 0.0002).

Conclusion Women > 64 years old who did not follow the national screening protocol showed significant differences in the frequency of abnormal results and severity of diagnosis compared with those who followed the protocol.

Resumo

Objetivo Comparar os resultados citológicos e histológicos de mulheres > 64 anos que seguiram as diretrizes nacionais brasileiras de rastreamento do câncer do colo do útero com aquelas que não as seguiram.

Método O presente estudo observacional retrospectivo analisou 207 resultados anormais de esfregaço cervical de mulheres > 64 anos de idade em uma cidade de médio porte no Brasil durante 14 anos. Todos os resultados foram relatados de acordo com o Sistema Bethesda. As mulheres foram divididas entre as que seguiram as diretrizes de rastreamento e as que não o fizeram.

Resultados Resultados citológicos com células escamosas atípicas de significado indeterminado e lesão intraepitelial escamosa de baixo grau foram encontrados em 128 (62,2%) casos. Destes, 112 (87,5%) repetiram a citologia com resultados positivos. Os outros 79 (38,1%) com resultados anormais deveriam ter sido encaminhados para colposcopia e biópsia. Das 41 (51,9%) mulheres biopsiadas, 23 (29,1%) tiveram diagnóstico confirmado de neoplasia ou lesão precursora. Em contrapartida, entre as 78 (37,7%) pacientes biopsiadas, 40 (51,3%) seguiram as recomendações da diretriz, com 9 (22,5%) biópsias positivas. Entre as 38 (48,7%) mulheres que não seguiram as orientações, houve 24 (63,1%) resultados positivos. As mulheres que não seguiram as diretrizes demonstraram maiores chances de câncer e lesões precursoras (odds ratio [OR]: 5,904; intervalo de confiança [IC] de 95%: 2,188–15,932; p = 0,0002).

Conclusão Mulheres > 64 anos que não seguiram a diretriz nacional de rastreamento apresentaram diferenças significativas na frequência de resultados anormais e gravidade do diagnóstico em comparação com aquelas que seguiram a diretriz.

Contributions

Substantial contributions to the design, data collection or analysis, and interpretation of data: Zago R. A., José C. C. X-V., Deolino J. C-J., Solange C. G. P. D.. Writing of the article or relevant critical review of intellectual content: Zago R. A., José C. C. X-V.,. Final approval of the version to be published: José C. C. X-V..

Publication History

Received: 17 April 2023

Accepted: 05 June 2023

Article published online:
23 December 2023

© 2023. Federação Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

• References

• 1 Instituto Nacional de Câncer. Diretrizes brasileiras para o rastreamento do câncer do colo do útero – 2. Ed. ver. atual. – Rio de Janeiro: INCA; 2016
  Google Scholar
• 2 Instituto Nacional de Câncer. . Estimativa 2023: incidência de câncer no Brasil – Rio de Janeiro: INCA, 2022
  PubMed
• 3 IA–C - International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization (WHO). IARC Handbooks Volume 18: Cervical Cancer Screening. Lyon: IARC Press; 2022
  Google Scholar
• 4 Vargas AC, Dell Agnolo C, Melo WA, Pelloso FC, Santos L, Carvalho MDB. et al. Trends in Cervical Cancer Mortality in Brazilian Women who are Screened and Not Screened. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2020; 21 (01) 55-62 DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2020.21.1.55.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Costa RF, Longatto-Filho A, Pinheiro C, Zeferino LC, Fregnani JH. Historical Analysis of the Brazilian Cervical Cancer Screening Program from 2006 to 2013: A Time for Reflection. PLoS One 2015; 10 (09) e0138945 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138945.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Ribeiro L, Bastos RR, Vieira MdeT, Ribeiro LC, Teixeira MT, Leite IC. [Opportunistic screening versus missed opportunities: non-adherence to Pap smear testing in women attending prenatal care]. Cad Saude Publica 2016; 32 (06) S0102-311 ×2016000605003. Doi: 10.1590/0102-311×00001415
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Bispo Pereira EH, Camilo-Júnior DJ, D'ávilla SCGP, Mattar NJ, Xavier-Júnior JCC. Comparison of cervical cancer screening results among public and private services in Brazil. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2022; 158 (02) 289-294 DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.1398.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Discacciati MG, Barboza BMS, Zeferino LC. Por que a prevalência de resultados citopatológicos do rastreamento do câncer do colo do útero pode variar significativamente entre duas regiões do Brasil?. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2014; 36 (05) 192-197 DOI: 10.1590/S0100-7203201400050002.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Nayar R, Wilbur DC. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology: Definitions, Criteria, and Explanatory Notes. 3rd ed. Switzerland: Springer; 2015
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 10 Aydogan Kirmizi D, Baser E, Demir Caltekin M, Onat T, Sahin S, Yalvac ES. Concordance of HPV, conventional smear, colposcopy, and conization results in cervical dysplasia. Diagn Cytopathol 2021; 49 (01) 132-139 DOI: 10.1002/dc.24655.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J. Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111 (01) 167-177
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Malagón T, Kulasingam S, Mayrand MH, Ogilvie G, Smith L, Bouchard C. et al. Age at last screening and remaining lifetime risk of cervical cancer in older, unvaccinated, HPV-negative women: a modelling study. Lancet Oncol 2018; 19 (12) 1569-1578 DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30536-9.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Clark M, Jembere N, Wang L, Kupets R. Survival of Older Women With Cervical Cancer Based on Screening History. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2021; 25 (01) 9-14 DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000582.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Gupta R, Sharda A, Kumar D, Fulzele R, Dwivedi R, Gupta S. Cervical Cancer Screening: Is the Age Group 30-65 Years Optimum for Screening in Low-Resource Settings?. J Obstet Gynaecol India 2021; 71 (05) 530-536 DOI: 10.1007/s13224-021-01479-w.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Castanon A, Green LI, Sasieni P. Impact of screening between the ages of 60 and 64 on cumulative rates of cervical cancer to age 84y by screening history at ages 50 to 59: A population-based case-control study. Prev Med 2021; 149: 106625 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106625.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Xie S, Pan S, Zou S, Zhu H, Zhu X. Characteristics and Treatments of Patients Aged 65 Years or Over with Cervical Cancer. Clin Interv Aging 2020; 15: 841-851 DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S255305.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Quinn BA, Deng X, Colton A, Bandyopadhyay D, Carter JS, Fields EC. Increasing age predicts poor cervical cancer prognosis with subsequent effect on treatment and overall survival. Brachytherapy 2019; 18 (01) 29-37 DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2018.08.016.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Dilley S, Huh W, Blechter B, Rositch AF. It's time to re-evaluate cervical Cancer screening after age 65. Gynecol Oncol 2021; 162 (01) 200-202 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.04.027.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Mills JM, Morgan JR, Dhaliwal A, Perkins RB. Eligibility for cervical cancer screening exit: Comparison of a national and safety net cohort. Gynecol Oncol 2021; 162 (02) 308-314 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.05.035.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Harper DM, Plegue M, Harmes KM, Jimbo M, SheinfeldGorin S. Three large scale surveys highlight the complexity of cervical cancer under-screening among women 45-65years of age in the United States. Prev Med 2020; 130: 105880 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105880.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Bispo Pereira EH, Camilo-Júnior DJ, Correa Garcia Pires D'ávilla S, Xavier-Júnior JC. Cervical cytology results among pregnant and non-pregnant women in Brazil. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2023; 282: 161-167 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.01.027.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Bergengren L, Karlsson MG, Helenius G. Prevalence of HPV and pathological changes among women 70 years of age, 10 years after exclusion from the Swedish cervical cancer screening program. Cancer Causes Control 2020; 31 (04) 377-381 DOI: 10.1007/s10552-020-01278-0.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Cooley JJP, Maguire FB, Morris CR, Parikh-Patel A, Abrahão R, Chen HA. et al. Cervical Cancer Stage at Diagnosis and Survival among Women ≥65 Years in California. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023; 32 (01) 91-97
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Zhang W, Gao K, Fowkes FJI, Adeloye D, Rudan I, Song P. et al. Associated factors and global adherence of cervical cancer screening in 2019: a systematic analysis and modelling study. Global Health 2022; 18 (01) 101
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Teixeira JC, Maestri CA, Machado HDC, Zeferino LC, Carvalho NS. Cervical Cancer Registered in Two Developed Regions from Brazil: Upper Limit of Reachable Results from Opportunistic Screening. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2018; 40 (06) 347-353 DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1660841.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Roberts JM, Machalek DA, Butler BC, Crescini J, Garland SM, Farnsworth A. Older women testing positive for HPV16/18 on cervical screening and risk of high-grade cervical abnormality. Int J Cancer 2023; 152 (08) 1593-1600 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.3439.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Keltto N, Leivonen A, Pankakoski M, Sarkeala T, Heinävaara S, Anttila A. Cervical testing beyond the screening target age - A register-based cohort study from Finland. Gynecol Oncol 2021; 162 (02) 315-321 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.05.019.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Rodrigues AN, de Melo AC, Calabrich AFC, Cronenberger E, Torres KL, Damian F. et al. Characteristics of patients diagnosed with cervical cancer in Brazil: preliminary results of the prospective cohort EVITA study (EVA001/LACOG 0215). Int J Gynecol Cancer 2022; 32 (02) 141-146
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Amaral AF, Araújo ES, Magalhães JC, Silveira EA, Tavares SB, Amaral RG. Impacto da capacitação dos profissionais de saúde sobre o rastreamento do câncer do colo do útero em unidades básicas de saúde. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2014; 36 (04) 182-187 DOI: 10.1590/s0100-7203201400040004.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Kirkegaard P, Gustafson LW, Petersen LK, Andersen B. ‘I Want the Whole Package’. Elderly Patients' Preferences for Follow-Up After Abnormal Cervical Test Results: A Qualitative Study. Patient Prefer Adherence 2020; 14: 1185-1193 DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S259095.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar