Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Pathology of the Cervix pp 45–65Cite as

Cervical Screening: History, Current Algorithms, and Future Directions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Essentials of Diagnostic Gynecological Pathology ((EDGP,volume 3))

Abstract

This chapter describes the principles and evaluation of cancer screening programs, the evolution and history of cytology-based cervical cancer screening programs in the UK, past and contemporary terminology and algorithms for the management of abnormal cytology results, and the future application of HPV and other molecular technology in cervical cancer screening.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Wilson JM, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Public Health Papers 34, 1. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Public Health England. Criteria for appraising the viability, effectiveness and appropriateness of a screening programme. Public Health England. 23-10-2016. 18-7-2016.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Frisell J, Glas U, Hellstrom L, Somell A. Randomized mammographic screening for breast cancer in Stockholm. Design, first round results and comparisons. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1986;8(1):45–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson TJ, Lamb J, Alexander F, et al. Comparative pathology of prevalent and incident cancers detected by breast screening. Edinburgh Breast Screening Project. Lancet. 1986;1(8480):519–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Spriggs AI. History of cytodiagnosis. J Clin Pathol. 1977;30(12):1091–102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Koprowska I. Concurrent discoveries of the value of vaginal smears for diagnosis of uterine cancer. Diagn Cytopathol. 1985;1(3):245–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hajdu SI. Cytology from antiquity to Papanicolaou. Acta Cytol. 1977;21(5):668–76.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stockard CR, Papanicolaou GN. The existence of a typical oestrous cycle in the guinea pig; with a study of its histological and physiological changes. Am J Anat. 1917;22:225–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Papanicolaou GN. New cancer diagnosis. Proceedings of the 3rd Race Betterment Conference, p. 528–34. 1928. Battle Creek, Michigan, Race Betterment Foundation; 1928.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Daniel C, Babes A. Posibilitatea diagnosticului cancerului uterin cu ajutorul frotiului. Proceedings of the Bucharest Gynaecological Society. 23-1-1927.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Babes A. Diagnostic du cancer du col uterin par les frottis. Presse Medicale. 1928;36:451–4.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Naylor B, Tasca L, Bartziota E, Schneider V. In Romania it’s the Methode Babes-Papanicolaou. Acta Cytol. 2002;46(1):1–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Viana O. La diagnosi precoce del cancro uterino mediante lo striscio [The early diagnosis of uterine cancer by smears]. La Clinica Ostetrica. 1928;30:781–93.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Viana O. The early diagnosis of uterine cancer by smears. Acta Cytol. 1970;14(8):544–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Papanicolaou GN. A new procedure for staining vaginal smears. Science. 1942;95(2469):438–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Koprowska I, George N. Papanicolaou – as we knew him. Acta Cytol. 1977;21(5):630–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Papanicolaou GN, Traut HF. Diagnosis of uterine cancer by the vaginal smear. New York: The Commonwealth Fund; 1943.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ayre JE. A simple office test for uterine cancer diagnosis. Can Med Assoc J. 1944;51(1):17–22.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Ayre JE. Cervical cytology in diagnosis of early cancer. JAMA. 1948;136(8):513–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Foote FW, LI K. Smear diagnosis of in situ carcinoma of the cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1948;56(2):335–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pund ER, Nieburgs HE. Preinvasive carcinoma of the cervix uteri; seven cases in which it was detected by examination of routine endocervical smears. Arch Pathol (Chic). 1947;44(6):571–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Pund ER, Nettles JB. Preinvasive and invasive carcinoma of cervix uteri; pathogenesis, detection, differential diagnosis, and the pathologic basis for management. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1948;55(5):831–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ayre JE. Selective cytology smear for diagnosis of cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1947;53(4):609–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Papanicolaou GN. Atlas of exfoliative cytology. Cambridge: The Commonwealth Fund by Harvard University Press; 1954.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Christopherson WM, Lundin Jr FE, Mendez WM, Parker JE. Cervical cancer control: a study of morbidity and mortality trends over a twenty-one-year period. Cancer. 1976;38(3):1357–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Christopherson WM, Scott MA. Trends in mortality from uterine cancer in relation to mass screening. Acta Cytol. 1977;21(1):5–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Anderson GH, Boyes DA, Benedet JL, et al. Organisation and results of the cervical cytology screening programme in British Columbia, 1955–85. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1988;296(6627):975–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hakama M, Louhivuori K. A screening programme for cervical cancer that worked. Cancer Surv. 1988;7(3):403–16.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Macgregor JE, Fraser ME, Mann EM. Improved prognosis for cervical cancers due to comprehensive screening. Acta Cytol. 1972;16(1):14–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Macgregor JE. Evaluation of mass screening programmes for cervical cancer in N.E. Scotland. Tumori. 1976;62(3):287–95.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Macgregor JE, Teper S. Mortality from carcinoma of cervix uteri in Britain. Lancet. 1978;2(8093):774–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Macgregor JE, Moss SM, Parkin DM, Day NE. A case-control study of cervical cancer screening in north east Scotland. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1985;290(6481):1543–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Macgregor JE, Moss S, Parkin DM, Day NE. Cervical cancer screening in north-east Scotland. IARC Sci Publ. 1986;76:25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Macgregor JE, Campbell MK, Mann EM, Swanson KY. Screening for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in north east Scotland shows fall in incidence and mortality from invasive cancer with concomitant rise in preinvasive disease. BMJ. 1994;308(6941):1407–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Macgregor JE, Fraser ME, Mann EM. Improved prognosis of cervical cancer due to comprehensive screening. Lancet. 1971;1(7689):74–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wachtel E. Screening for cervical cancer. Practitioner. 1973;211(262):137–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kocjan G, Herbert A. Nasseem Husain: homage to a pioneer of cytology automation. Cytopathology. 2015;26(4):211–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wilson JM. Screening for cervical cancer. Mon Bull Minist Health Public Health Lab Serv. 1961;20:214–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Wilson JM. Some aspects of the epidemiology of cervical cancer. Mon Bull Minist Health Public Health Lab Serv. 1965;24:72–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Williams J. On cancer of the uterus: being the Harveian Lectures for 1886. London: H K Lewis; 1886.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Cullen TS. Cancer of the uterus: its pathology, symptomatology, diagnosis, and treatment. New York: Appleton; 1900.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Rubin IC. The pathological diagnosis of incipient carcinoma of the cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1910;62:668–76.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Broders AC. Carcinoma in situ contrasted with benign penetrating epithelium. JAMA. 1932;99:1670–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wied GL. Editorial. First International Conference of Exfoliative Cytology. Proceedings of the First International Congress of Exfoliative Cytology. Philadelphia: Appleton-Century Crofts.; 1962, p. 297.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ritton G, Christopherson WM. Cytology of the Female Genital Tract. [No 8]. Geneva, World Health Organisation. International Classification of Tumours; 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Reagan JW, Hicks DJ. A study of in situ and squamous-cell cancer of the uterine cervix. Cancer. 1953;6(6):1200–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Reagan JW, Seidemann IL, Saracusa Y. The cellular morphology of carcinoma in situ and dysplasia or atypical hyperplasia of the uterine cervix. Cancer. 1953;6(2):224–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Richart RM. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Pathol Annu. 1973;8:301–28.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Spriggs AI, Butler EB, Evans DMD, et al. Problems of cell nomenclature in cervical cytology smears. J Clin Pathol. 1978;31:1226–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Evans DM, Hudson EA, Brown CL, et al. Terminology in gynaecological cytopathology: report of the Working Party of the British Society for Clinical Cytology. J Clin Pathol. 1986;39(9):933–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Borderline nuclear changes in cervical smears: guidelines on their recognition and management. National Coordinating Network (National Cervical Screening Programme), British Society for clinical Cytology, and Royal College of Pathologists’ Working Party. J Clin Pathol. 1994;47(6):481–92.

    Google Scholar 

  53. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. Developed and approved at a National Cancer Institute Workshop, Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A., December 12–13, 1988. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1989;11(5):291–7.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Solomon D. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: developed and approved at the National Cancer Institute Workshop in Bethesda, Maryland, December 12–13, 1988. Hum Pathol. 1990;21(7):704–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. The revised Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: report of the 1991 Bethesda workshop. J Reprod Med. 1992;37(5):383–6.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287(16):2114–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Smith JH. Bethesda 2001. Cytopathology. 2002;13(1):4–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Herbert A, Gray W, Cross P. Terminology of the BSCC, European Community and the Bethesda system: the boundary between low-grade and high-grade cytology. Cytopathology. 2009;20(1):3–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Denton KJ, Herbert A, Turnbull LS, et al. The revised BSCC terminology for abnormal cervical cytology. Cytopathology. 2008;19(3):137–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Slater DN, Rice S, Stewart R, et al. Proposed Sheffield quantitative criteria in cervical cytology to assist the grading of squamous cell dyskaryosis, as the British Society for Clinical Cytology definitions require amendment. Cytopathology. 2005;16(4):179–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Cancer of the cervix: death by incompetence. Lancet 1986;326:363–4.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Department of Health and Social Security. HC(88)1. Health Services Management Cervical Cancer Screening. 12-1-1988. London: DHSS.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Farmery E, Gray M. Report of the first five years of the NHS cervical screening programme. Oxford: National Co-ordinating Network, Anglia and Oxford Regional Health Authority; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  64. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. Celebrating 15 years of achievement. NHS Cervical Screening Programme Annual Review 2003. Sheffield: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Herbert A, Johnson J. Achievable standards, benchmarks for reporting and criteria for evaluating cervical cytopathology. 1st ed. Sheffield: NHS Cervical Screening Programme; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Johnson J, Patnick J. Achievable standards, benchmarks for reporting, and criteria for evaluating cervical cytopathology. Second edition including revised performance indicators. Cytopathology. 2000;11(4):212–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Johnson J, Patnick J, editors. Achievable standards, benchmarks for reporting, and criteria for evaluating cervical cytopathology. Sheffield: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Smith J, Patnick J, editors. Achievable standards, benchmarks for reporting, criteria for evaluating cervical cytopathology. 3rd ed. Sheffield: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Smith JH. ABC3 Part I: a review of the guidelines for terminology, classification and management of cervical cytology in England. Cytopathology. 2012;23(6):353–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Blanks RG. ABC3 Part II: a review of the new criteria for evaluating cervical cytology in England. Cytopathology. 2012;23(6):360–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Marlow LA, Sangha A, Patnick J, Waller J. The Jade Goody Effect: whose cervical screening decisions were influenced by her story? J Med Screen. 2012;19(4):184–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Lancucki L, Sasieni P, Patnick J, Day TJ, Vessey MP. The impact of Jade Goody’s diagnosis and death on the NHS Cervical Screening Programme. J Med Screen. 2012;19(2):89–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of liquid-based cytology for cervical screening. 2000. NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance No5.

    Google Scholar 

  74. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of liquid based cytology for cervical screening. 2003. Technology Appraisal 69.

    Google Scholar 

  75. NHSCSP. Modernising the NHSCSP. NICE appraisal on liquid based cytology published 22 October 2003. Advice to the service. Sheffield: NHSCSP; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  76. National Advisory Group. Steering Group Report on the feasibility of introducing liquid based cytology. Scottish Cervical Screening Programmme; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Luesley D, Leeson S. Colposcopy and programme management. NHSCSP Publication 20. Sheffield: NHSCSP; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Sasieni P, Adams J, Cuzick J. Benefit of cervical screening at different ages: evidence from the UK audit of screening histories. Br J Cancer. 2003;89(1):88–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Rieck GC, Tristram A, Hauke A, Fielder H, Fiander AN. Cervical screening in 20-24-year olds. J Med Screen. 2006;13(2):64–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Herbert A, Smith JH. Women under 25 should be offered screening. BMJ. 2007;334(7588):273.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Herbert A, Holdsworth G, Kubba AA. Cervical screening: why young women should be encouraged to be screened. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2008;34(1):21–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Fiander AN. Cervical screening in young women aged 20–24 years. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2008;34(1):19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Castanon A, Leung VM, Landy R, Lim AW, Sasieni P. Characteristics and screening history of women diagnosed with cervical cancer aged 20–29 years. Br J Cancer. 2013;109(1):35–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Patnick J, editor. NHSCSP annual review 2006. Sheffield: NHSCSP; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Dowie R, Stoykova B, Crawford D, et al. Liquid-based cytology can improve efficiency of cervical smear readers: evidence from timing surveys in two NHS cytology laboratories. Cytopathology. 2006;17(2):65–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Williams AR. Liquid-based cytology and conventional smears compared over two 12-month periods. Cytopathology. 2006;17(2):82–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Gregory L, Dudding N, Smith JH. The impact of introducing liquid based cytology into a routine screening laboratory. Cytopathology. 2006;17(supplement 1):24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Beerman H, van Dorst EB, Kuenen-Boumeester V, Hogendoorn PC. Superior performance of liquid-based versus conventional cytology in a population-based cervical cancer screening program. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112(3):572–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Department of Health. Cancer Reform Strategy. 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Patnick J, editor. NHSCSP annual review 2007. Sheffield: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  91. NHSCSP Workforce Survey Working Group. A survey of non-medical staff within the cervical screening programme 2002–2005. Sheffield: NHSCSP; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol. 1999;189(1):12–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Bosch FX, Lorincz A, Munoz N, Meijer CJ, Shah KV. The causal relation between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2002;55(4):244–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Bosch FX, Burchell AN, Schiffman M, et al. Epidemiology and natural history of human papillomavirus infections and type-specific implications in cervical neoplasia. Vaccine. 2008;26(Suppl 10):K1–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Gravitt PE, Coutlee F, Iftner T, et al. New technologies in cervical cancer screening. Vaccine. 2008;26(Suppl 10):K42–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Cuzick J, Arbyn M, Sankaranarayanan R, et al. Overview of human papillomavirus-based and other novel options for cervical cancer screening in developed and developing countries. Vaccine. 2008;26(Suppl 10):K29–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Arbyn M, Roelens J, Simoens C, et al. Human papillomavirus testing versus repeat cytology for triage of minor cytological cervical lesions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;3:CD008054.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Moss S, Gray A, Legood R, et al. Effect of testing for human papillomavirus as a triage during screening for cervical cancer: observational before and after study. BMJ. 2006;332(7533):83–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Legood R, Gray A, Wolstenholme J, Moss S. Lifetime effects, costs, and cost effectiveness of testing for human papillomavirus to manage low grade cytological abnormalities: results of the NHS pilot studies. BMJ. 2006;332(7533):79–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Kelly RS, Patnick J, Kitchener HC, Moss SM. HPV testing as a triage for borderline or mild dyskaryosis on cervical cytology: results from the sentinel sites study. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(7):983–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. Smith JH. The future of cervical screening in the UK. Diagn Histopathol. 2009;15(7):330–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Chan BK, Melnikow J, Slee CA, Arellanes R, Sawaya GF. Posttreatment human papillomavirus testing for recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(4):422–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Kitchener HC, Walker PG, Nelson L, et al. HPV testing as an adjunct to cytology in the follow up of women treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. BJOG. 2008;115(8):1001–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Husain OA. The history of automated cell scanners. In: Grohs HK, Husain OA, editors. Automated cervical cancer screening. New York: Igaku-Shoin; 1994. p. 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Biscotti CV, Dawson AE, Dziura B, et al. Assisted primary screening using the automated ThinPrep Imaging System. Am J Clin Pathol. 2005;123(2):281–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Wilbur DC, Black-Schaffer WS, Luff RD, et al. The Becton Dickinson FocalPoint GS Imaging System: clinical trials demonstrate significantly improved sensitivity for the detection of important cervical lesions. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;132(5):767–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Broadstock M. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of automated and semi-automated cervical screening devices: a systematic review of the literature. N Z Med J. 2001;114(1135):311–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Willis PH, Barton P, Pearmain P, Bryan S, Hyde C. Cervical screening programmes: can automation help? Evidence from systematic reviews, an economic analysis and a simulation modelling exercise applied to the UK. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:1–207.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Kitchener HC, Blanks R, Dunn G, et al. Automation-assisted versus manual reading of cervical cytology (MAVARIC): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(1):56–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Anttila A, Pokhrel A, Kotaniemi-Talonen L, et al. Cervical cancer patterns with automation-assisted and conventional cytological screening: a randomized study. Int J Cancer. 2011;128(5):1204–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Kitchener HC, Blanks R, Cubie H, et al. MAVARIC – a comparison of automation-assisted and manual cervical screening: a randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(3):iii–xi, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Public Health England. Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage in adolescent females in England: 2014/15. 1-12-2015. PHE. 8-8-2016.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Joura EA, Giuliano AR, Iversen OE, et al. A 9-valent HPV vaccine against infection and intraepithelial neoplasia in women. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(8):711–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Gardasil 9: new HPV vaccine approved in the European Union. 2015. 8-8-2016.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Franco EL, Cuzick J, Hildesheim A, de Sanjose S. Chapter 20: issues in planning cervical cancer screening in the era of HPV vaccination. Vaccine. 2006;24(Suppl 3):S171–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Brotherton JM, Fridman M, May CL, et al. Early effect of the HPV vaccination programme on cervical abnormalities in Victoria, Australia: an ecological study. Lancet. 2011;377(9783):2085–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Pollock KG, Kavanagh K, Potts A, et al. Reduction of low- and high-grade cervical abnormalities associated with high uptake of the HPV bivalent vaccine in Scotland. Br J Cancer. 2014;111(9):1824–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. Palmer TJ, McFadden M, Pollock KG, et al. HPV immunisation and cervical screening–confirmation of changed performance of cytology as a screening test in immunised women: a retrospective population-based cohort study. Br J Cancer. 2016;114(5):582–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  119. Arbyn M, Anttila A, Jordan J, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. Second edition – summary document. Ann. Oncologia. 2010;21(3):448–58.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Wright Jr TC, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, et al. 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical screening tests. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2007;11(4):201–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Naucler P, Ryd W, Tornberg S, et al. Efficacy of HPV DNA testing with cytology triage and/or repeat HPV DNA testing in primary cervical cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(2):88–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Cox JT, Castle PE, Behrens CM, et al. Comparison of cervical cancer screening strategies incorporating different combinations of cytology, HPV testing, and genotyping for HPV 16/18: results from the ATHENA HPV study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208(3):184.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Denton KJ, Bergeron C, Klement P, et al. The sensitivity and specificity of p16(INK4a) cytology vs HPV testing for detecting high-grade cervical disease in the triage of ASC-US and LSIL pap cytology results. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010;134(1):12–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Tambouret RH. Use of immunohistochemical staining for p16 in gynecological cytology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016;124(9):611–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Petry KU, Schmidt D, Scherbring S, et al. Triaging Pap cytology negative, HPV positive cervical cancer screening results with p16/Ki-67 Dual-stained cytology. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;121(3):505–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Ikenberg H, Bergeron C, Schmidt D, et al. Screening for cervical cancer precursors with p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology: results of the PALMS study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(20):1550–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Wentzensen N, Fetterman B, Castle PE, et al. p16/Ki-67 dual stain cytology for detection of cervical precancer in HPV-positive women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(12):djv257.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. Hesselink AT, Heideman DA, Steenbergen RD, et al. Combined promoter methylation analysis of CADM1 and MAL: an objective triage tool for high-risk human papillomavirus DNA-positive women. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(8):2459–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. De Strooper LM, van Zummeren M, Steenbergen RD, et al. CADM1, MAL and miR124-2 methylation analysis in cervical scrapes to detect cervical and endometrial cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2014;67(12):1067–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. De Strooper LM, Meijer CJ, Berkhof J, et al. Methylation analysis of the FAM19A4 gene in cervical scrapes is highly efficient in detecting cervical carcinomas and advanced CIN2/3 lesions. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2014;7(12):1251–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  131. Verhoef VM, van Kemenade FJ, Rozendaal L, et al. Follow-up of high-risk HPV positive women by combined cytology and bi-marker CADM1/MAL methylation analysis on cervical scrapes. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;137(1):55–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Verhoef VM, Heideman DA, van Kemenade FJ, et al. Methylation marker analysis and HPV16/18 genotyping in high-risk HPV positive self-sampled specimens to identify women with high grade CIN or cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;135(1):58–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. De Strooper LM, Verhoef VM, Berkhof J, et al. Validation of the FAM19A4/mir124-2 DNA methylation test for both lavage- and brush-based self-samples to detect cervical (pre)cancer in HPV-positive women. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;141(2):341–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  134. Gravitt PE, Belinson JL, Salmeron J, Shah KV. Looking ahead: a case for human papillomavirus testing of self-sampled vaginal specimens as a cervical cancer screening strategy. Int J Cancer. 2011;129(3):517–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  135. Gravitt PE, Rositch AF. HPV self-testing and cervical cancer screening coverage. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(2):128–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Gok M, van Kemenade FJ, Heideman DA, et al. Experience with high-risk human papillomavirus testing on vaginal brush-based self-samples of non-attendees of the cervical screening program. Int J Cancer. 2012;130(5):1128–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  137. Cervical Screening Programme: England, Statistics for 2014–15. http://www.hscic.gov.uk/pubs/cervical1415 . 2016. 8-8-2016.

  138. Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfstrom KM, et al. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2014;383(9916):524–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Kitchener HC, Almonte M, Gilham C, et al. ARTISTIC: a randomised trial of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in primary cervical screening. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(51):1–iv.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Kitchener HC, Gilham C, Sargent A, et al. A comparison of HPV DNA testing and liquid based cytology over three rounds of primary cervical screening: extended follow up in the ARTISTIC trial. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(6):864–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Kitchener HC, Canfell K, Gilham C. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary human papillomavirus cervical screening in England: extended follow-up of the ARTISTIC randomised trial cohort through three screening rounds. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(23):1–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Herbert A, Johnson J, Patnick J. Achievable standards, benchmarks for reporting and criteria for evaluating cervical cytopathology. Cytopathology. 1995;6:301–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Histopathology and Cytology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK

    John H. F. Smith

Authors
  1. John H. F. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John H. F. Smith .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Edinburgh Edinburgh, Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

    C. Simon Herrington

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Smith, J.H.F. (2017). Cervical Screening: History, Current Algorithms, and Future Directions. In: Herrington, C. (eds) Pathology of the Cervix. Essentials of Diagnostic Gynecological Pathology, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51257-0_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51257-0_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-51255-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-51257-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation