Cent Eur J Public Health 2008, 16(Supplement):S25-S26

Alternative Screening Methods within the Organised Screening Programme for Cervical Cancer in Finland

Ahti Anttila
Mass Screening Registry, Finnish Cancer Registry, Helsinki, Finland

In Finland the organised screening programme to prevent cervical cancer has been in action since early 1960s. The programme has effectively reduced cervical cancer burden in our country. There are needs still to evaluate potential uses of novel technological alternatives within the programme. A large-scale randomised public health policy trial on primary sole HPV screening is ongoing. This enables random allocation of sophisticated screening tests, and also follow-up of cancer rates after screening episodes, in order to evaluate and plan for optimal screening policies (e.g., testing ages and intervals) in the future. Improving screening attendance in the organised programme is another key to further prevent cervical cancers in our country. Efforts are needed also to reduce overuse of screening services, taking place in spontaneous or opportunistic screening; in order to decrease potential adverse effects and to improve overall cost-effectiveness.

Keywords: cervical cancer, incidence, mortality, organised screening, cytology, HPV-DNA screening

Published: April 1, 2008  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Anttila A. Alternative Screening Methods within the Organised Screening Programme for Cervical Cancer in Finland. Cent Eur J Public Health. 2008;16(Supplement):S25-26.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Hakama M, Joutsenlahti U,VirtanenA, Räsänen-Virtanen U. Mass screenings for cervical cancer in Finland 1963-71. Organization, extent, and epidemiological implications. Ann Clin Res. 1975 Apr;7(2):101-11.
    2. Anttila A, Pukkala E, Söderman B, Kallio M, Nieminen P, Hakama M. Effect of organised screening on cervical cancer incidence and mortality in Finland, 1963-1995: recent increase in cervical cancer incidence. Int J Cancer. 1999 Sep 24;83(1):59-65. Go to original source...
    3. Finnish Cancer Registry. Cancer in Finland 2004 and 2005. Publication no. 72. Helsinki: Cancer Society of Finland; 2007.
    4. Hristova L, Hakama M. Effect of screening for cancer in the Nordic countries on deaths, cost and quality of life up to the year 2017. Acta Oncol. 1997;36 Suppl 9:1-60. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    5. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Cervix cancer screening. IARC handbooks of cancer prevention. Volume 10. Lyon: IARC; 2005.
    6. Hakama M, Räsänen-Virtanen U. Effect of a mass screening program on the risk of cervical cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 1976 May;103(5):512-7. Go to original source...
    7. AnttilaA, Nieminen P. Cervical cancer screening programme in Finland. Eur J Cancer. 2000 Nov;36(17):2209-14. Go to original source...
    8. Anttila A, Nieminen P. Cervical cancer screening programme in Finland with an example on implementing alternative screening methods. Coll Antropol. 2007 Apr;31 Suppl 2:17-22.
    9. Anttila A, Hakama M, Kotaniemi-Talonen L, Nieminen P. Alternative technologies in cervical cancer screening: a randomised evaluation trial. BMC Public Health. 2006 Oct 16;6:252. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    10. Nieminen P, Kotaniemi L, Hakama M, Tarkkanen J, Martikainen J, Toivonen T, et al. A randomised public-health trial on automation-assisted screening for cervical cancer in Finland: performance with 470,000 invitations. Int J Cancer. 2005 Jun 10;115(2):307-11. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    11. Kotaniemi-Talonen L, Anttila A, Malila N, Tarkkanen J, Laurila P, Hakama M, et al. Screening with a primary human papillomavirus test does not increase detection of cervical cancer and intraepithelial neoplasia 3. Eur J Cancer. 2008 Mar;44(4):565-71. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    12. Kotaniemi-Talonen L, Nieminen P, Hakama M, Seppänen J, Ikkala J, Martikainen J, et al. Significant variation in performance does not reflect the effectiveness of the cervical cancer screening programme in Finland. Eur J Cancer. 2007 Jan;43(1):169-74. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    13. Eaker S,Adami HO, Granath F, Wilander E, Sparén P.Alarge populationbased randomized controlled trial to increase attendance at screening for cervical cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004 Mar;13(3):34654. Go to original source...
    14. Bais AG, van Kemenade FJ, Berkhof J, Verheijen RH, Snijders PJ, Voorhorst F, et al. Human papillomavirus testing on self-sampled cervicovaginal brushes: an effective alternative to protect nonresponders in cervical screening programms. Int J Cancer. 2007 Apr 1;120(7):150510. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    15. Nieminen P, Anttila A. Introducing HPV screening: challenges and fallacies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86(12):1416-8. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    16. Arbyn M, Anttila A, Jordan J, Ronco G, Schenck U, Segnan N, et al, editors. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening. 2nd ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2008.

    Return to the content