Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 299, Issue 3, pp 847–855 | Cite as

The impact of a cervical dysplasia diagnosis on individual cancer prevention habits over time: a bicentric case–control study

  • N. Rippinger
  • J. Heinzler
  • T. Bruckner
  • J. Brucker
  • C. Dinkic
  • J. Hoffmann
  • N. Dornhöfer
  • S. Seitz
  • J. Rom
  • C. Sohn
  • T. C. Schott
  • Sarah SchottEmail author
Gynecologic Oncology

Abstract

Purpose

Annual cervical cancer screening is recommended in Germany as a part of the statutory preventive care. Abnormal results can provoke psychological distress and anxiety, compromising women’s adherence. Little is known about how a cervical dysplasia impacts adherence follow-up visits and prevention habits over time. To optimize care strategies, this study aims to identify women at risk for nonadherence to follow-up visits after a screening event.

Methods

Between November 2015 and May 2017, participants with an abnormal Pap smear at the Heidelberg and Leipzig University Hospitals received a four-part questionnaire (sociodemographic data, PHQ-D, self-designed fear and prevention habit questions) at the first consultation (T1) and subsequently after 3 (T2) and 6 (T3) months; healthy controls completed the questionnaire at T1.

Results

132 women with an abnormal Pap smear [with conization: S1 (n = 68, 51.5%), without intervention: S2 (n = 64, 48.5%)] and healthy controls (K, n = 101) generally adhered to gynecological checkups, except S1 6 months after the first diagnosis (S1/T3 − 0.47, signed rank p < 0.0005). Knowledge of primary prevention information, i.e., HPV vaccination, was significantly higher among K (K 58%, S1 29%, S2 44%, Chi-squared p = 0.01) as was vaccine uptake (K 39% versus S1/S2 7% and 17%, respectively, Chi-squared p = 0.0004). Fear of upcoming Pap smears rose significantly over time (S1/T1–S1/T2–S1/T3, Wilcoxon signed-rank test p < 0.001) and was higher among those with conization at T2 (Chi-square test, p = 0.01) and partially accompanied by panic disorders at T1 (Chi-square test p = 0.035). Realization of general preventive habits rose significantly among women without an operative procedure (S2) over the study.

Conclusion

This study advances the understanding of non-participation in follow-up visits after a dysplasia diagnosis, identifying post-conization women as a special risk group for decreased adherence.

Keywords

Cervical dysplasia Conization Cancer prevention habits Adherence PHQ-D 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge K. Weimer, MD for critical discussion, F. Cohrs, MD and L. Matthies, MD for their contribution in recruiting patients and K. Taylor for critical reading.

Author contributions

NR: manuscript writing/editing and data analysis. JH: data collection and management, data analysis, and manuscript editing. TB: data analysis and manuscript editing. JB: data collection. CD: data collection. JH: data collection. ND: data collection. SS: data collection. JR: manuscript editing. CS: manuscript editing. TCS: protocol/project development and manuscript editing. SS: protocol/project development, manuscript writing/editing, and project supervision.

Funding

This research was not funded by any grant or funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (2017) Gebärmutterhalskrebs-Früherkennung. https://www.krebsinformationsdienst.de/tumorarten/gebaermutterhalskrebs/frueherkennung.php?hpv-test. Accessed 16 Apr 2017
  2. 2.
    Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (2011) Ziel 2a—Weiterentwicklung der Gebärmutterhals-Früherkennung. https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/themen/praevention/nationaler-krebsplan/was-haben-wir-bisher-erreicht/ziel-2a.html. Accessed 1 May 2017
  3. 3.
    Marquardt KUB, Büttner HH, Barten M (2007) Zervixkarzinom trotz Früherkennungsprogramm—analyse von Teilnahmeraten und Tumorstadium. Frauenarzt 11/2007Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Statistisches Bundesamt Wiesbaden (2015) Fallpauschalenbezogene Krankenhausstatistik (DRG-Statistik) Operationen und Prozeduren der vollstationären Patientinnen und Patienten in Krankenhäusern—Ausführliche Darstellung. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Gesundheit/Krankenhaeuser/OperationenProzeduren5231401147014.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. Accessed 16 Aug 2017
  5. 5.
    Robert Koch Institut, Zentrum für Krebsregisterdaten (2015). http://www.krebsdaten.de/Krebs/DE/Content/Krebsarten/Gebaermutterhalskrebs/gebaermutterhalskrebs_node.html. Accessed 17 Apr 2017
  6. 6.
    Chang AR (1990) Carcinoma in situ of the cervix and its malignant potential. A lesson from New Zealand. Cytopathology 1(6):321–328Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kinlen LJ, Spriggs AI (1978) Women with positive cervical smears but without surgical intervention. A follow-up study. Lancet (London, England) 2(8087):463–465Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ostor AG (1993) Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol 12(2):186–192Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IGWiG) (2011) Nutzenbewertung eines HPV-Tests im Primärsceening des Zervixkarzinoms (trans: (Auftraggeber) GB). Abschlussbericht S10-01, vol Version 1.0Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schiffman MH, Bauer HM, Hoover RN, Glass AG, Cadell DM, Rush BB, Scott DR, Sherman ME, Kurman RJ, Wacholder S et al (1993) Epidemiologic evidence showing that human papillomavirus infection causes most cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst 85(12):958–964Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zentralinstitut für die kassenärztliche Versorgung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland Dripl. Kfm. H. Kerek Bodden, Dr. L. Altenhofen, Dr. G. Brenner (2008) Durchführung einer versichertenbezogenen Untersuchung zur Inanspruchnahme der Früherkennung auf Zervixkarzinom in den Jahren 2002, 2003 und 2004 auf der Basis von Abrechnungsdaten. http://www.ag-cpc.de/media/ZI-Abschlussbericht-080602.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2017
  12. 12.
    Harlfinger W (2008) Prävention-das wichtigste Standbein der Frauenarztpraxis 2008 Heft Nr. Seite 9:772–778Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marquardt K, Buttner HH, Broschewitz U, Barten M, Schneider V (2011) Persistent carcinoma in cervical cancer screening: non-participation is the most significant cause. Acta Cytol 55(5):433–437.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000331811 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    European Communities (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. http://screening.iarc.fr/doc/ND7007117ENC_002.pdf
  15. 15.
    Thangarajah F, Einzmann T, Bergauer F, Patzke J, Schmidt-Petruschkat S, Theune M, Engel K, Puppe J, Richters L, Mallmann P, Kirn V (2016) Cervical screening program and the psychological impact of an abnormal Pap smear: a self-assessment questionnaire study of 590 patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet 293(2):391–398.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3821-z Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frederiksen ME, Njor S, Lynge E, Rebolj M (2015) Psychological effects of diagnosis and treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a systematic review. Sex Transm Infect 91(4):248–256.  https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2014-051754 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    IARC 2005 (2005) Cervix cancer screening. IARC handbooks of cancer prevention, vol 10, Chap 5: effectiveness of screening in populationsGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heinzler J, Brucker J, Bruckner T, Dinkic C, Hoffmann J, Dornhofer N, Seitz S, Sohn C, Rom J, Schott TC, Schott S (2018) Impact of a cervical dysplasia and its treatment on quality of life and sexual function. Arch Gynecol Obstet.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4853-y Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schott S, Heinzler J, Rippinger N, Bruckner T, Brucker J, Hoffmann J, Dornhofer N, Dinkic C, Seitz S, Rom J, Sohn C, Schott TC (2018) Adherence to gynecological screening impacted by experienced orthodontic treatment in childhood. Arch Gynecol Obstet.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4950-y Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB (1999) Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders. Patient Health Questionnaire. JAMA 282(18):1737–1744Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gräfe K, Zipfel S, Herzog W, Löwe B (2004) Screening psychischer Störungen mit dem “Gesundheitsfragebogen für Patienten (PHQ-D)“. Diagnostica 50(4):171–181.  https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.50.4.171 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Soutter WP, Moss B, Perryman K, Kyrgiou M, Papakonstantinou K, Ghaem-Maghami S (2012) Long-term compliance with follow-up after treatment for cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 91(9):1103–1108.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01477.x Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Soutter WP, Sasieni P, Panoskaltsis T (2006) Long-term risk of invasive cervical cancer after treatment of squamous cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Cancer 118(8):2048–2055.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.21604 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maissi E, Marteau TM, Hankins M, Moss S, Legood R, Gray A (2004) Psychological impact of human papillomavirus testing in women with borderline or mildly dyskaryotic cervical smear test results: cross sectional questionnaire study. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 328(7451):1293.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7451.1293 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    (2017) Many women ‘unaware’ of cervical screening programme. Nurs Stand 31(47):17.  https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.31.47.17.s19
  26. 26.
    Marlow LAV, Chorley AJ, Haddrell J, Ferrer R, Waller J (2017) Understanding the heterogeneity of cervical cancer screening non-participants: Data from a national sample of British women. Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 80:30–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.04.017 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vetter L, Keller M, Bruckner T, Golatta M, Eismann S, Evers C, Dikow N, Sohn C, Heil J, Schott S (2016) Adherence to the breast cancer surveillance program for women at risk for familial breast and ovarian cancer versus overscreening: a monocenter study in Germany. Breast Cancer Res Treat 156(2):289–299.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3748-5 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jahresbericht Evaluation 2014. Deutsches Mammographie-Screening-Programm. Kooperationsgemeinschaft Mammographie, Berlin, access date 04/2018 (2016). http://newsroom.mammo-programm.de/download/fachpublikation/KOOPMAMMO_Jahresbericht_EVAL2014_20161206_klein.pdf. Accessed 04 Apr 2018
  29. 29.
    Klug SJ, Hetzer M, Blettner M (2005) Screening for breast and cervical cancer in a large German city: participation, motivation and knowledge of risk factors. Eur J Pub Health 15(1):70–77.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cki118 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Flamant C, Gauthier E, Clavel-Chapelon F (2006) Determinants of non-compliance to recommendations on breast cancer screening among women participating in the French E3N cohort study. Eur J Cancer Prev 15(1):27–33PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kinnear H, Rosato M, Mairs A, Hall C, O’Reilly D (2011) The low uptake of breast screening in cities is a major public health issue and may be due to organisational factors: a census-based record linkage study. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) 20(5):460–463.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2011.04.009 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Everett T, Bryant A, Griffin MF, Martin-Hirsch PP, Forbes CA, Jepson RG (2011) Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 5:Cd002834.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd002834.pub2 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Klug SJ, Taylor KJ, Scheidemann-Wesp U, Lautz D, Guther B, Potthoff P, Blettner M (2010) Participation in cervical cancer screening in Germany. Prev Med 51(5):431–432.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.08.008 Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rosen BL, Shepard A, Kahn JA (2018) US health care clinicians’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding human papillomavirus vaccination: a qualitative systematic review. Acad Pediatr 18(2s):S53–s65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2017.10.007 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Santhanes D, Yong CP, Yap YY, Saw PS, Chaiyakunapruk N, Khan TM (2018) Factors influencing intention to obtain the HPV vaccine in South East Asian and Western Pacific regions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 8(1):3640.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21912-x PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Remschmidt C, Walter D, Schmich P, Wetzstein M, Delere Y, Wichmann O (2014) Knowledge, attitude, and uptake related to human papillomavirus vaccination among young women in Germany recruited via a social media site. Hum Vaccines Immunother 10(9):2527–2535.  https://doi.org/10.4161/21645515.2014.970920 Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Delere Y, Bohmer MM, Walter D, Wichmann O (2013) HPV vaccination coverage among women aged 18-20 years in Germany three years after recommendation of HPV vaccination for adolescent girls: results from a cross-sectional survey. Hum Vaccines Immunother 9(8):1706–1711.  https://doi.org/10.4161/hv.24904 Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sultana F, English DR, Simpson JA, Drennan KT, Mullins R, Brotherton JM, Wrede CD, Heley S, Saville M, Gertig DM (2016) Home-based HPV self-sampling improves participation by never-screened and under-screened women: results from a large randomized trial (iPap) in Australia. Int J Cancer 139(2):281–290.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.30031 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Verdoodt F, Jentschke M, Hillemanns P, Racey CS, Snijders PJ, Arbyn M (2015) Reaching women who do not participate in the regular cervical cancer screening programme by offering self-sampling kits: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 51(16):2375–2385.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.006 Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Virtanen A, Nieminen P, Malila N, Luostarinen T, Anttila A (2013) Self-sampling and reminder letters increase participation in the Finnish cervical cancer screening programme. Duodecim; laaketieteellinen aikakauskirja 129(16):1709–1717Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bowles EJ, Gao H, Brandzel S, Bradford SC, Buist DS (2016) Comparative effectiveness of two outreach strategies for cervical cancer screening. Prev Med 86:19–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.01.016 Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lonnberg S, Andreassen T, Engesaeter B, Lilleng R, Kleven C, Skare A, Johansson K, Fredheim CS, Trope A (2016) Impact of scheduled appointments on cervical screening participation in Norway: a randomised intervention. BMJ Open 6(11):e013728.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013728 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Boksmati N, Butler-Henderson K, Anderson K, Sahama T (2016) The effectiveness of SMS reminders on appointment attendance: a meta-analysis. J Med Syst 40(4):90.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-016-0452-2 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Gynaecology and ObstetricsUniversity Hospital HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics (IMBI)University Hospital HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  3. 3.Department of Gynaecology and ObstetricsLeipzig University HospitalLeipzigGermany
  4. 4.Department of Gynaecology and ObstetricsUniversity Medical Center RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  5. 5.Department of Orthodontics and Orofacial OrthopedicsUniversity Hospital TubingenTubingenGermany
  6. 6.German Cancer Consortium (DKTK)Heidelberg and German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ)HeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations