Single negative colposcopy: is it enough to rule out high-grade disease?

It has been proposed that women who have a negative colposcopic examination or who have no cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) on colposcopic biopsy can be safely returned to routine screening with the next visit being three or five years later. We present data regarding 551 women who had colposcopy in Wales for a low-grade cytological abnormality and who were followed through Cervical Screening Wales for subsequent CIN. Of 436 women declared CIN free initially, 26 (6.0%) had high-grade CIN diagnosed on follow-up. We suggest that additional screening at an interval of less than three years should be offered to women with a negative colposcopy or a biopsy without CIN.

Use of time to pregnancy in environmental epidemiology and surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Potential sources of environmental pollution, such as incinerators or landfill sites, can adversely affect reproduction and/or development. Time to pregnancy (TTP) is a validated measure of biological fertility that can be studied with relatively small populations. METHODS: Pregnant local residents living within 3 km of a landfill site ('exposed' group, n = 200) or elsewhere in the Rhondda valleys ('unexposed' group, n = 400) were interviewed by health visitors or midwives. The response rate was 83%. RESULTS: No difference was found in the TTP distributions between the exposed and unexposed groups. Relationships of TTP with covariates were consistent with the literature. CONCLUSIONS: In a context of public and scientific concern about possible reproductive toxicity, an interview study of TTP was highly acceptable to local women. A large enough sample to generate stable TTP distributions was readily achieved.

Factors associated with breast cancer-specific distress in younger women participating in a family history mammography screening programme.

This multi-centre study examined factors associated with breast cancer-specific distress in 2321 women under 50 who are on a mammographic screening programme on account of their family history. Women were recruited from 21 UK centres, and completed a questionnaire one month before their screening appointment. The transactional theory of stress, appraisal, and coping provided the theoretical framework for the study. Factors measured included screening history, family history, perceived risk, cognitive appraisals, coping, optimism, and cancer worry. The findings indicate that the majority of women appraise their family history as being relevant and somewhat threatening to personal well-being, but something they can deal with emotionally. Acceptance was the most commonly used coping strategy. Hierarchical regression analysis identified that the factors most significantly associated with distress were an appraisal of high relevance and threat, increased risk perception, low dispositional optimism, and the use of both avoidant and task-orientated coping strategies. Women with children and those with relatives who have died from breast cancer were also more distressed. To conclude, most women appraised their situation positively but there is a potential profile of risk factors which may help clinicians identify those women who need extra psychological support as they progress through screening.

Risk of congenital anomalies after the opening of landfill sites.

Concern that living near a particular landfill site in Wales caused increased risk of births with congenital malformations led us to examine whether residents living close to 24 landfill sites in Wales experienced increased rates of congenital anomalies after the landfills opened compared with before they opened. We carried out a small-area study in which expected rates of congenital anomalies in births to mothers living within 2 km of the sites, before and after opening of the sites, were estimated from a logistic regression model fitted to all births in residents living at least 4 km away from these sites and hence not likely to be subject to contamination from a landfill, adjusting for hospital catchment area, year of birth, sex, maternal age, and socioeconomic deprivation score. We investigated all births from 1983 through 1997 with at least one recorded congenital anomaly [International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), codes 7400-7599; International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10), codes Q000-Q999]. The ratio of the observed to expected rates of congenital anomalies before landfills opened was 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.75-1.00], and this increased to 1.21 (95% CI, 1.04-1.40) after opening, giving a standardized risk ratio of 1.39 (95% CI, 1.12-1.72). Enhanced congenital malformation surveillance data collected from 1998 through 2000 showed a standardized risk ratio of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.88-1.21). Causal inferences are difficult because of possible biases from incomplete case ascertainment, lack of data on individual-level exposures, and other socioeconomic and lifestyle factors that may confound a relationship with area of residence. However, the increase in risk after the sites opened requires continued enhanced surveillance of congenital anomalies, and site-specific chemical exposure studies. Key words: congenital malformations, epidemiology, landfill, small-area health statistics.

Reviewing interval cancers: time well spent?

OBJECTIVES: To categorize interval cancers, and thus identify false-negatives, following prevalent and incident screens in the Welsh breast screening programme. SETTING: Breast Test Wales (BTW) Llandudno, Cardiff and Swansea breast screening units. METHODS: Five hundred and sixty interval breast cancers identified following negative mammographic screening between 1989 and 1997 were reviewed by eight screening radiologists. The blind review was achieved by mixing the screening films of women who subsequently developed an interval cancer with screen negative films of women who did not develop cancer, in a ratio of 4 to 1. Another radiologist used patients' symptomatic films to record a reference against which the reviewers' reports of the screening films were compared. Interval cancers were categorized as 'true', 'occult', 'false-negative' or 'unclassified' interval cancers or interval cancers with minimal signs, based on the National Health Service breast screening programme (NHSBSP) guidelines. RESULTS: Of the classifiable interval films, 32% were false-negatives, 55% were true intervals and 12% occult. The proportion of false-negatives following incident screens was half that following prevalent screens (P = 0.004). Forty percent of the seed films were recalled by the panel. CONCLUSIONS: Low false-negative interval cancer rates following incident screens (18%) versus prevalent screens (36%) suggest that lower cancer detection rates at incident screens may have resulted from fewer cancers than expected being present, rather than from a failure to detect tumours. The panel method for categorizing interval cancers has significant flaws as the results vary markedly with different protocol and is no more accurate than other, quicker and more timely methods.