Papanicolaou test Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia

  • Original Article05-01-2014

    Why does the prevalence of cytopathological results of cervical cancer screening can vary significantly between two regions of Brazil?

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2014;36(5):192-197

    Abstract

    Original Article

    Why does the prevalence of cytopathological results of cervical cancer screening can vary significantly between two regions of Brazil?

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2014;36(5):192-197

    DOI 10.1590/S0100-7203201400050002

    Views70

    PURPOSE:

    To analyze the prevalence of cervical cytopathological results for the screening of cervical cancer with regard to women's age and time since the last examination in Maceió and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, among those assisted by the Brazilian Unified Health System.

    METHODS:

    Cervical cytopathological results available in the Information System of Cervical Cancer Screening for the year 2011 were analyzed, corresponding to 206,550 for Rio de Janeiro and 45,243 for Maceió.

    RESULTS:

    In Rio de Janeiro, examination at one and two year intervals predominated, while in Maceió examination at one and three year intervals had a higher predominance. Women who underwent cervical smear screening in Maceió were older than those in Rio de Janeiro. The prevalence of invasive squamous cell carcinoma was similar for the two cities, but all the other results presented a higher prevalence in Rio de Janeiro: ASCUS (PR=5.32; 95%CI 4.66-6.07); ASCH (PR=4.27; 95%CI 3.15-5.78); atypical glandular cells (PR=10.02; 95%CI 5.66-17.76); low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (PR=6.10; 95%CI 5.27-7.07); high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (PR=8.90; 95%CI 6.50-12.18) and adenocarcinoma (PR=3.00; 95%CI 1.21-7.44). The rate of unsatisfactory cervical samples was two times higher in Maceió and that of rejected samples for analysis was five times higher in Maceió when compared to Rio de Janeiro.

    CONCLUSIONS:

    The prevalence rates of altered cervical cytopathological results was significantly higher in Rio de Janeiro than in Maceió. There is no objective information that may justify this difference. One hypothesis is that there may be a difference in the diagnostic performance of the cervical cancer screening, which could be related to the quality of the Pap smear. Thus, these findings suggest that it would be necessary to perform this evaluation at national level, with emphasis on the performance of cervical cancer screening in order to improve the effectiveness of cervical cancer control.

    See more
    This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Search

Search in:

Article type
Article type
abstract
book-review
brief-report
case-report
correction
editorial
letter
other
rapid-communication
research-article
review-article
Section
Section
Case Report
Clinical Consensus Recommendation
Editorial
Editorial
Equipamentos e Métodos
Erratum
FEBRASGO POSITION STATEMENT
FIGO Statement
GUIDELINES
Integrative Review
Letter to the Editor
Métodos e Técnicas
Nominata 2024
Nota do Editor
Nota Prévia
Original Article
Original Article/Contraception
Original Article/Infertility
Original Article/Obstetrics
Original Article/Oncology
Original Article/Sexual Violence/Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
Original Article/Teaching and Training
Reply to the Letter to the Editor
Resposta dos Autores
Resumo De Tese
Resumos de Teses
Resumos dos Trabalhos Premiados no 50º Congresso Brasileiro de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Review Article
Short Communication
Special Article
Systematic Review
Técnicas e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Métodos
Year / Volume
Year / Volume
2025; v.47
2025; v.46
2024; v.46
2023; v.45
2022; v.44
2021; v.43
2020; v.42
2019; v.41
2018; v.40
2017; v.39
2016; v.38
2015; v.37
2014; v.36
2013; v.35
2012; v.34
2011; v.33
2010; v.32
2009; v.31
2008; v.30
2007; v.29
2006; v.28
2005; v.27
2004; v.26
2003; v.25
2002; v.24
2001; v.23
2000; v.22
1999; v.21
1998; v.20
ISSUE
ISSUE