A first survey of organized cervical cancer screening programs in Italy. GISCi working group on organization and evaluation. Gruppo Italiano Screening Citologico |
| |
Authors: | Ronco G Iossa A Naldoni C Pilutti S Anghinoni E Zappa M Dalla Palma P Ciatto S Segnan N |
| |
Affiliation: | Department of Oncology, ASL TOI, Center for Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention (CPO), Regione Piemonte, Torino, Italy. |
| |
Abstract: | In Italy, where no national screening program for cervical cancer exists, organized programs have developed on a local basis. We performed the first survey of existing organized programs by mailing a standard questionnaire to a large network of possibly involved services. For the present survey, a program was defined as organized if personal invitations were sent. We identified 29 already active organized programs and 4 others in a starting phase. The target population of active programs included 2,074,820 women in the age range 25-64 years, corresponding to 13.5% of the Italian female population of the same age. The situation is rapidly evolving since many regional programs are being implemented. Most programs followed Italian and European recommendations as regards the age limits, interval between screening rounds, presence of a fail-safe system for women referred for colposcopy, presence of protocols for diagnostic workup and treatment, and presence of referral centers for such phases. However, many programs did not meet national guidelines as regards the size of laboratories interpreting smears, which were frequently small. Second-level referral centers also frequently had a very small activity. The average (weighted for size of the invited population) compliance to invitation and coverage (proportion of women with at least one test in the last 3 years) was 32.6% and 66.0%, respectively, therefore needing to be improved. Compliance to colposcopy (weighted for number of referred women) was 81.4%. We found a very high variability in the proportion of women referred for colposcopy that could only be partly explained by different referral protocols and could depend on different criteria of smear interpretation: the average (weighted for number of tested women) was 2.01%. A need for improvement in the process of evaluation and for homogenization of criteria of cytology interpretation was identified: work in this regard is on-going. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 PubMed 等数据库收录! |
|