Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29307386›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Public health2018

Prediction of cervical cancer incidence in England, UK, up to 2040, under four scenarios: a modelling study.

Alejandra Castanon, Rebecca Landy, Francesca Pesola, Peter Windridge, Peter Sasieni

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Non-speculum sampling approaches for cervical screening in older women: randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Trial
  8. Article
  9. A guide to cancer screening.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Strategies to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer in British Columbia, Canada: a modelling study.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alejandra CastanonCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. Electronic address: a.castanon@qmul.ac.uk.
Rebecca LandyCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Francesca PesolaCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Peter WindridgeCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Peter SasieniCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; Bermondsey Wing, Guy's and St Thomas', Kings College London, London, UK.
Queen Mary University of London · GBKing's College London · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16892Cancer Research UK C8162/A16872
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the next 25 years, the epidemiology of cervical cancer in England, UK, will change: human papillomavirus (HPV) screening will be the primary test for cervical cancer. Additionally, the proportion of women screened regularly is decreasing and women who received the HPV vaccine are due to attend screening for the first time. Therefore, we aimed to estimate how vaccination against HPV, changes to the screening test, and falling screening coverage will affect cervical cancer incidence in England up to 2040.

methodsWe did a data modelling study that combined results from population modelling of incidence trends, observable data from the individual level with use of a generalised linear model, and microsimulation of unobservable disease states. We estimated age-specific absolute risks of cervical cancer in the absence of screening (derived from individual level data). We used an age period cohort model to estimate birth cohort effects. We multiplied the absolute risks by the age cohort effects to provide absolute risks of cervical cancer for unscreened women in different birth cohorts. We obtained relative risks (RRs) of cervical cancer by screening history (never screened, regularly screened, or lapsed attender) using data from a population-based case-control study for unvaccinated women, and using a microsimulation model for vaccinated women. RRs of primary HPV screening were relative to cytology. We used the proportion of women in each 5-year age group (25-29 years to 75-79 years) and 5-year period (2016-20 to 2036-40) who have a combination of screening and vaccination history, and weighted to estimate the population incidence. The primary outcome was the number of cases and rates per 100 000 women under four scenarios: no changes to current screening coverage or vaccine uptake and HPV primary testing from 2019 (status quo), changing the year in which HPV primary testing is introduced, introduction of the nine-valent vaccine, and changes to cervical screening coverage.

findingsThe status quo scenario estimated that the peak age of cancer diagnosis will shift from the ages of 25-29 years in 2011-15 to 55-59 years in 2036-40. Unvaccinated women born between 1975 and 1990 were predicted to have a relatively high risk of cervical cancer throughout their lives. Introduction of primary HPV screening from 2019 could reduce age-standardised rates of cervical cancer at ages 25-64 years by 19%, from 15·1 in 2016 to 12·2 per 100 000 women as soon as 2028. Vaccination against HPV types 16 and 18 (HPV 16/18) could see cervical cancer rates in women aged 25-29 years decrease by 55% (from 20·9 in 2011-15 to 9·5 per 100 000 women by 2036-40), and introduction of nine-valent vaccination from 2019 compared with continuing vaccination against HPV 16/18 will reduce rates by a further 36% (from 9·5 to 6·1 per 100 000 women) by 2036-40. Women born before 1991 will not benefit directly from vaccination; therefore, despite vaccination and primary HPV screening with current screening coverage, European age-standardised rates of cervical cancer at ages 25-79 years will decrease by only 10% (from 12·8 in 2011-15 to 11·5 per 100 000 women in 2036-40). If screening coverage fell to 50%, European age-standardised rates could increase by 27% (from 12·8 to 16·3 per 100 000 by 2036-40).

interpretationGoing forward, focus should be placed on scenarios that offer less intensive screening for vaccinated women and more on increasing coverage and incorporation of new technologies to enhance current cervical screening among unvaccinated women.

fundingJo's Cervical Cancer Trust and Cancer Research UK.

Indexed as

AdultAgedEarly Detection of CancerEnglandFemaleHumansIncidenceMass ScreeningMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalPapillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesUnited KingdomUterine Cervical NeoplasmsPapillomavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID29307386
PMCPMC5765529
OpenAlexW2780073244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.