Advertisement

Socio-demographic Characteristics and Use of Pap Smear for Cervical Cancer Screening Among Women of Eastern Part of India

  • Dipanwita Ghosh
  • Sutapa Mahata
  • Pranab Kumar Sahoo
  • Sinjini Sarkar
  • Asoke Roy
  • Karabi Datta
  • Manisha Vernekar
  • Syamsundar Mandal
  • Vilas D. NasareEmail author
Original Article
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in India with high incidence and mortality rates. The aim of the study was to examine the association of risk with cervical cancer by Pap smear screening approach.

Methods

This study design is based on retrospective data collection from case files of Cancer Detection Centre (CDC) who attended during the period of January 1995 to September 2016. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics, cross-tabulation and Pearson’s chi-square test.

Results

The study included 1195 women of whom 31.4% were aged 26–35 years; 91.2% Hindus; 80.3% housewives; 64.8% school educated; 85.8% married; 97.9% non-vegetarian; and 53.9% small family size. The above parameters were highly significant with the clinical diagnosis of cervical lesions by Pap test (p < 0.05). Addictions like betel leaf and smoking/chewing tobacco have shown significant correlation with cytological test (p < 0.05). Gynaecologic history including menarche, menstrual type, menopause, parity, abortion and mode of delivery had strong correlation with Pap test (p < 0.05). The chief complaints, clinical examination of cervix, clinical diagnosis and size of uterus had strong correlation with cytological findings (p = 0.001).

Conclusion

The findings of the present study indicate that demographic characteristics, addictions, gynaecological and obstetric history and medical characteristics are strongly associated with increased risk of cervical cancer in Indian women. Furthermore, Pap smear is an effective screening method in low-cost infrastructure and for early detection.

Keywords

Cervical cancer Socio-demographic characteristics Pap test 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We like to thank friends and well wishers for their encouragement and frequent selfless help for pursuing the study. The authors would like to thank all the patients and their family members for their participation, support and cooperation. We would also like to thank Director, CNCI, for his overall support. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest among the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. A global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sankaranarayanan R, Wesle RS. A practical manual on visual screening for cervical neoplasia. Accessed from screening.iarc.fr/doc/viavilimanual.pdf on July 20, 2017. International Agency for Research on Cancer Lyon, France. 2003.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Botelho MC, Alves H, Richter J. Estrogen catechols detection as biomarkers in schistosomiasis induced cancer and infertility. Lett Drug Des Discov. 2017;14(2):135–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Saghari S, Ghamsary M, Marie-mitchell A, et al. Annals of epidemiology sociodemographic predictors of delayed- versus early-stage cervical cancer in California. Ann Epidemiol. 2015;25(4):250–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP): social ecological model. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/nbccedp/sem.html. Cited 23 Oct 2017.
  6. 6.
    Seo M, Langabeer JR II. Determinants of potentially unnecessary cervical cancer screenings in American women. J Prev Med Public Health. 2018;51(4):181–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mwaka AD, Garimoi CO, Were EM, et al. Social, demographic and healthcare factors associated with stage at diagnosis of cervical cancer: cross-sectional study in a tertiary hospital in Northern Uganda. BJM Open. 2016;6(1):1–10.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Behnamfar F, Azadehrah M. Factors associated with delayed diagnosis of cervical cancer in Iran—a survey in Isfahan city. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(2):635–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bansal AB, Pakhare AP, Kapoor N, et al. Knowledge, attitude, and practices related to cervical cancer among adult women: a hospital-based cross-sectional study. J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2015;6:324–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaarthigeyan K. Cervical cancer in India and HPV vaccination. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol. 2012;33:7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Louie KS, de Sanjose S, Diaz M, et al. Early age at first sexual intercourse and early pregnancy are risk factors for cervical cancer in developing countries. Br J Cancer. 2009;100(7):1191–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saxena U, Sauvaget C, Sankaranarayanan R. Evidence-based screening, early diagnosis and treatment strategy of cervical cancer for national policy in low-resource countries: example of India. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13:1699–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tracy JK, Lydecker AD, Ireland L. Barriers to cervical cancer screening among lesbians. J Womens Health. 2010;19(2):229–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Matthews AK, Brandenburg DL, Johnson TP, et al. Correlates of underutilization of gynecological cancer screening among lesbian and heterosexual women. Prev Med. 2004;38(1):105–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Misra JS, Srivastava S, Singh U, Srivastava AN. Risk-factors and strategies for control of carcinoma cervix in India: hospital based cytological screening experience of 35 years. Indian J Cancer. 2009;46:155–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kataki AC, Sharma JD, Krishnatreya M, et al. A survival study of uterine cervical patients in the North East India: hospital-cancer registry-based analysis. J Can Res Ther. 2018;14:1089–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thulaseedharan JV, Malila N, Hakama M, et al. Socio demographic and reproductive risk factors for cervical cancer: a large prospective cohort study from rural India. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(6):2991–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Swaminathan R, Selvakumaran R, Vinodha J, et al. Education and cancer incidence in a rural population in south India. Cancer Epidemiol. 2009;33(2):89–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mlange R, Matovelo D, Rambau P, et al. Patient and disease characteristics associated with late tumour stage at presentation of cervical cancer in northwestern Tanzania. BMC Womens Health. 2016;16:5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stewart TS, Moodley J, Walter F. Population risk factors for late stage presentation of cervical cancer in sub-Saharan African. Cancer Epidemiol. 2018;53:81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Berraho M, Obtel M, Bendahhou K, et al. Sociodemographic factors and delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer in Morocco. Pan African Med J. 2012;12:14.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ncube B, Bey A, Knight J, et al. Factors associated with the uptake of cervical cancer screening among women in portland, Jamaica. N Am J Med Sci. 2015;7:104–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Drew JAR, Short SE. Disability and pap smear receipt among U.S. women, 2000 and 2005. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2010;42:258–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wei W, Findley PA, Sambamoorthi U. Disability and receipt of clinical preventive services among women. Women’s Health Issues. 2006;16:286–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dunyo P, Effah K, Udofia EA. Factors associated with late presentation of cervical cancer cases at a district hospital: a retrospective study. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rajkumar T, Franceschi S, Vaccarella S, et al. Role of paan chewing and dietary habits in cervical carcinoma in Chennai, India. Br J Cancer. 2003;88(9):1388–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shruthi PS, Kalyani R, Kai LJ, et al. Clinicopathological correlation of cervical carcinoma: a tertiary hospital based study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(4):1671–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Asciutto KC, Forslund O, Borgfeldt C. Prevalence of high-risk HPV in postmenopausal women with benign cervical cytology—a population-based cohort study. Anticancer Res. 2018;38(7):4221–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Reis N, Beji NK, Kilic D. Risk factors for cervical cancer: results from a hospital based-study case-control study. Int J Hematol Oncol. 2011;21(3):153–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Franceschi S, Rajkumar T, Vaccarella S, et al. Human papillomavirus and risk factors for cervical cancer in Chennai, India: a case–control study. Int J Cancer. 2003;107(1):127–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kruger-Kjaer S, Van den Brule AJ, Svare EI, et al. Different risk factor patterns for high-grade and low-grade intraepithelial lesions on the cervix among HPV-positive and HPV-negative young women. Int J Cancer. 1998;76(5):613–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Castle PE, Wacholder S, Lorincz AT, et al. A prospective study of high-grade cervical neoplasia risk among human papillomavirus-infected women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(18):1406–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Noehr B, Jensen A, Frederiksen K, et al. Depth of cervical cone removed by loop electrosurgical excision procedure and subsequent risk of spontaneous preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:1232–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Castanon A, Landy R, Brocklehurst P, et al. Risk of preterm delivery with increasing depth of excision for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in England: nested case–control study. BMJ. 2014;349:g7406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bjørge T, Skare GB, Bjørge L, et al. Adverse pregnancy outcomes after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(6):1265–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sauvan M, Pourcelot AG, Fournet S, et al. Office hysteroscopy for postmenopausal women: feasibility and correlation with transvaginal ultrasound. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2018;47(10):505–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sui L, Xie F, Cao B. Management of abnormal uterine hemorrhage with atypical endometrial hyperplasia by transcervical resection of endometrium. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16(3):1482–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lim AW, Ramirez AJ, Hamilton W, et al. Delays in diagnosis of young females with symptomatic cervical cancer in England: an interview-based study. Br J Gen Pract. 2014;64(627):e602–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gundrajakuppam L, Shanthi V, Rao NM, et al. Clincopathological correlation of cervical carcinoma by pap smear. J Biosci Tech. 2011;2011(2):439–45.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Gynecologic Oncologists of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dipanwita Ghosh
    • 1
  • Sutapa Mahata
    • 1
  • Pranab Kumar Sahoo
    • 1
  • Sinjini Sarkar
    • 1
  • Asoke Roy
    • 1
  • Karabi Datta
    • 2
  • Manisha Vernekar
    • 3
  • Syamsundar Mandal
    • 2
  • Vilas D. Nasare
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Pathology and Cancer ScreeningChittaranjan National Cancer InstituteKolkataIndia
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsChittaranjan National Cancer InstituteKolkataIndia
  3. 3.Department of Gynaecological OncologyChittaranjan National Cancer InstituteKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations