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

Renata Alfena Zago, Deolino João Camilo-Júnior, Solange Correa Garcia Pires D'Ávilla, José Cândido Caldeira Xavier-Júnior
{"title":"Underestimated Cervical Cancer among Women over 65 Years Old: Is It Time to Revise the Screening Target Age Group?","authors":"Renata Alfena Zago, Deolino João Camilo-Júnior, Solange Correa Garcia Pires D'Ávilla, José Cândido Caldeira Xavier-Júnior","doi":"10.1055/s-0043-1772477","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong> 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> 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; <i>p</i> = 0.0002).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":74699,"journal":{"name":"Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1772477","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
低估了 65 岁以上妇女的宫颈癌患病率:现在是修订筛查目标年龄组的时候了吗?
目的比较遵循巴西国家宫颈癌筛查指南的 64 岁以上女性与未遵循指南的女性的细胞学和组织学结果:本观察性回顾研究分析了巴西一个中等城市 14 年间 207 名 64 岁以上女性的异常宫颈涂片结果。所有结果均按照贝塞斯达系统进行报告。这些妇女被分为遵循筛查指南的妇女和未遵循筛查指南的妇女:128例(62.2%)中发现了意义不明的非典型鳞状细胞和低级别鳞状上皮内病变细胞学结果。其中,112 例(87.5%)重复细胞学检查结果呈阳性。其他 79 个(38.1%)结果异常的病例本应转诊至阴道镜检查和活组织检查。在 41 名(51.9%)接受活组织检查的妇女中,23 名(29.1%)确诊为肿瘤或前驱病变。相比之下,在 78 名(37.7%)活检患者中,40 名(51.3%)遵循了指南建议,其中 9 名(22.5%)活检结果呈阳性。在 38 名(48.7%)未遵循指南的妇女中,有 24 名(63.1%)阳性结果。未遵循指南的妇女患癌症和前驱病变的几率更高(几率比 [OR]:5.904; 95% 置信区间 [CI]: 2.188-15.932; p = 0.0002):结论:未遵循国家筛查方案的 64 岁以上女性与遵循该方案的女性相比,在异常结果频率和诊断严重程度方面存在显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Syphilis and pregnancy. Immunosuppressants in women with repeated implantation failure in assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Multidisciplinary team training in postpartum hemorrhage: impact on the use of blood products. Neonatal and maternal outcomes of mRNA versus Non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. A new screening of preterm birth in gestation with short cervix after pessary plus progesterone.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1