Objectives: The American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the US Preventive Services Task Force recommend discontinuation of cervical cancer screening between 65 and 70 years of age in women with no abnormal test results in the preceding 10 years. This population-based study was undertaken to determine the incidence of cervical cancer in different age groups as a means to establish if current screening recommendations need reevaluation. Study Design: Data from the SEER database were used to compute incidence rates for cervical cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2006 by age and disease stage. Results: We identified 18,003 women with cervical cancer. 12.18% were above the age of 69. The incidence in this age group was 8.7/100,000. Women younger than 30 comprised 5.7% of patients with an incidence of 5/100,000 and were most commonly diagnosed with stage IA1 disease. Women above 70 were most frequently diagnosed with stage IIIB. 79% of patients younger than 30 were diagnosed with an early disease (stage IA1–IIA) as opposed to only 41.2% of patients aged 69 or above. Conclusions: The incidence of cervical cancer does not decrease significantly in older women. Women over the age of 70 are frequently diagnosed with advanced stage disease which limits their treatment options. Failure to apply uniform screening across all at-risk age groups may account for the discrepancy.

Keywords:
Cervical cancer, Elderly women, Incidence, Screening
1.
Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D: Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61:69–90.
2.
Vizcaino AP, Moreno V, Bosch FX, Munoz N, Barros-Dios XM, Borras J, et al: International trends in incidence of cervical cancer. II. Squamous-cell carcinoma. IntJ Cancer 2000;86:429–435.
3.
Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E: Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010;60:277–300.
4.
Ries LAG, Eisner MP, Kosary CL, Hankey BF, Miller BA, Clegg LX, Edwards BK: SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1973–1997. Bethesda, National Cancer Institute, 2000.
5.
Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M, Mariotto A, Miller BA, Feuer EJ, Clegg L, Horner MJ, Howlader N, Eisner MP, Reichman M, Edwards BK: SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975–2004. Bethesda, National Cancer Institute, 2007.
6.
Chan PK, Chang AR, Yu MY, Li WH, Chan MY, Yeung AC, et al: Age distribution of human papillomavirus infection and cervical neoplasia reflects caveats of cervical screening policies. Int J Cancer 2010;126:297–301.
7.
US Preventive Services Task Force: Screening for cervical cancer: recommendations and rationale. Am J Nurs 2003;103:101–102, 105–106, 108–109.
8.
ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins – Gynecology: ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 109: cervical cytology screening. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:1409–1420.
9.
Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D, Moscicki AB, Smith RA, Eyre HJ, et al: American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2002;52:342–362.
10.
Hartmann KE, Hall SA, Nanda K, Boggess JF, Zolnoun D: Screening for Cervical Cancer. Systematic Evidence Review No. 25. Rockville, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2002.
11.
Shrestha L: Life expectancy in the United States. CRS Report for Congress, 2006.
12.
National Institutes of Health: Cervical cancer. NIH consensus statement 1996;14:1–38.
13.
MacDonald CF: Assessing secondary prevention methods for cervical cancer: costs and benefits in managed care. Am J Manag Care 2008;14:S185–S192.
14.
Leyden WA, Manos MM, Geiger AM, Weinmann S, Mouchawar J, Bischoff K, et al: Cervical cancer in women with comprehensive health care access: attributable factors in the screening process. J Nat Cancer Inst 2005;97:675–683.
15.
Eggleston KS, Coker AL, Luchok KJ, Meyer TE: Adherence to recommendations for follow-up to abnormal Pap tests. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:1332–1341.
16.
Sawaya GF, Sung HY, Kearney KA, Miller M, Kinney W, Hiatt RA, et al: Advancing age and cervical cancer screening and prognosis. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001;49:1499–504.
17.
Wright JD, Gibb RK, Geevarghese S, Powell MA, Herzog TJ, Mutch DG, et al: Cervical carcinoma in the elderly: an analysis of patterns of care and outcome. Cancer 2005;103:85–91.
18.
Ries LAG, Kosary CL, Hankey BF, Miller BA, Clegg LX, Edwards BK: SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1973–1996. Bethesda, National Cancer Institute, 1999.
19.
Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, Bosch FX, Kummer JA, Shah KV, et al: Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999;189:12–19.
20.
Sawaya GF, Brown AD, Washington AE, Garber AM: Clinical practice: current approaches to cervical-cancer screening. New Engl J Med 2001;344:1603–1607.
21.
Roberts AD, Denholm RB, Cordiner JW: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in postmenopausal women with negative cervical cytology. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985;290:281.
22.
Zhao C, Elishaev E, Yuan KH, Yu J, Austin RM: Very low human Papillomavirus DNA prevalence in mature women with negative computer-imaged liquid-based Pap tests. Cancer 2007;111:292–297.
23.
Hewitt M, Devesa SS, Breen N: Cervical cancer screening among U.S. women: analyses of the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Prev Med 2004;39:270–278.
24.
Swan J, Breen N, Coates RJ, Rimer BK, Lee NC: Progress in cancer screening practices in the United States: results from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer 2003;97:1528–1540.
25.
Hildesheim A, Hadjimichael O, Schwartz PE, Wheeler CM, Barnes W, Lowell DM, et al: Risk factors for rapid-onset cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:571–577.
26.
Mandelblatt J, Lawrence W, Yi B, King J: The balance of harms, benefits, and costs of screening for cervical cancer in older women: the case for continued screening. Arch Intern Med 2004;164:245–248.
27.
Mandelblatt JS, Lawrence WF, Womack SM, Jacobson D, Yi B, Hwang YT, et al: Benefits and costs of using HPV testing to screen for cervical cancer. JAMA 2002;287:2372–2381.
28.
Ronco G, Sideri MG, Ciatto S: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and higher long term risk of cancer. BMJ 2007;335:1053–1054.
29.
Zhao C, Austin RM: Human papillomavirus DNA detection in ThinPrep Pap test vials is independent of cytologic sampling of the transformation zone. Gynecol Oncol 2007;107:231–235.
30.
Zhao C, Austin RM: Adjunctive high-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing is a useful option for disease risk assessment in patients with negative Papanicolaou tests without an endocervical/transformation zone sample. Cancer 2008;114:242–248.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.