Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of brjcancerBJC HomepageBJC Advance online publicationBJC Current IssueSubmitting an article to BJCWeb feeds
Br J Cancer. 1995 August; 72(2): 498–505.
PMCID: PMC2033984

Efficiency of organised and opportunistic cytological screening for cancer in situ of the cervix.


Cervical cancer incidence and mortality can be reduced by removal of precursor lesions detected at cytological screening. Organised screening, i.e. regular invitation of defined target groups, is generally considered more effective than opportunistic screening. The latter method however, is predominant in most settings. There is no scientific basis for advocating one type of screening or the other. Our aim was to compare the two types and to analyse their efficiency. We analysed 466,275 smears taken in an open cohort of 118,890 women during 1969-88. A computerised database permitted standardised classification of all smears and complete ascertainment of cancer in situ through record linkage. The number of in situ cancers detected per 1000 smears, the detection ratio, was used as an outcome measure both in univariate analyses and in multivariate logistic regression models. Cancer in situ was detected in 1076 women in the study cohort, with a detection ratio of 3.0 at organised and 2.1 at opportunistic screening, yielding an unadjusted odds ratio of 0.69 (95% CI 0.61-0.79). After adjustment for age and time period, the probability of detecting cancer in situ was around 25% higher with opportunistic than with organised screening (OR = 1.26; 95% CI 1.09-1.46). This difference in favour of opportunistic screening was most pronounced in the first 10 year period and disappeared during the last decade. The difference in efficiency between organised and opportunistic screening in the detection of cancer in situ was slight, if any. The dogma that organised screening is significantly more efficient than the opportunistic type needs reconsideration.

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (1.5M), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Ahlgren M, Lindberg LG, Nordqvist S, Stormby NG. Mass screening for cervical cancer with the aid of nurses and an administrative computer service. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1969;48(Suppl):58+–58+. [PubMed]
  • Anderson GH, Boyes DA, Benedet JL, Le Riche JC, Matisic JP, Suen KC, Worth AJ, Millner A, Bennett OM. Organisation and results of the cervical cytology screening programme in British Columbia, 1955-85. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1988 Apr 2;296(6627):975–978. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Bergström R, Adami HO, Gustafsson L, Pontén J, Sparén P. Detection of preinvasive cancer of the cervix and the subsequent reduction in invasive cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Jul 7;85(13):1050–1057. [PubMed]
  • Bhargava VL, Verma K, Sharma R, Batra S, Anandalakshmy PN. A hospital-based study on the use of paramedical personnel for clinical downstaging of cancer cervix. Indian J Med Res. 1993 Apr;98:65–68. [PubMed]
  • Chamberlain J. Failures of the cervical cytology screening programme. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984 Oct 6;289(6449):853–854. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Cook GA, Draper GJ. Trends in cervical cancer and carcinoma in situ in Great Britain. Br J Cancer. 1984 Sep;50(3):367–375. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Day NE. Effect of cervical cancer screening in Scandinavia. Obstet Gynecol. 1984 May;63(5):714–718. [PubMed]
  • Day NE. Screening for cancer of the cervix. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1989 Jun;43(2):103–106. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Draper GJ, Cook GA. Changing patterns of cervical cancer rates. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983 Aug 20;287(6391):510–512. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Elwood JM, Cotton RE, Johnson J, Jones GM, Curnow J, Beaver MW. Are patients with abnormal cervical smears adequately managed? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984 Oct 6;289(6449):891–894. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Gustafsson L, Adami HO. Natural history of cervical neoplasia: consistent results obtained by an identification technique. Br J Cancer. 1989 Jul;60(1):132–141. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Gustafsson L, Adami HO. Cytologic screening for cancer of the uterine cervix in Sweden evaluated by identification and simulation. Br J Cancer. 1990 Jun;61(6):903–908. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Gustafsson L, Adami HO. Optimization of cervical cancer screening. Cancer Causes Control. 1992 Mar;3(2):125–136. [PubMed]
  • Hakama M, Louhivuori K. A screening programme for cervical cancer that worked. Cancer Surv. 1988;7(3):403–416. [PubMed]
  • Hill GB, Adelstein AM. Cohort mortality from carcinoma of the cervix. Lancet. 1967 Sep 16;2(7516):605–606. [PubMed]
  • Knox EG, Woodman CB. Effectiveness of a cancer control programme. Cancer Surv. 1988;7(3):379–401. [PubMed]
  • Koopmanschap MA, van Oortmarssen GJ, van Agt HM, van Ballegooijen M, Habbema JD, Lubbe KT. Cervical-cancer screening: attendance and cost-effectiveness. Int J Cancer. 1990 Mar 15;45(3):410–415. [PubMed]
  • Koopmanschap MA, Lubbe KT, van Oortmarssen GJ, van Agt HM, van Ballegooijen M, Habbema JK. Economic aspects of cervical cancer screening. Soc Sci Med. 1990;30(10):1081–1087. [PubMed]
  • Lynge E, Madsen M, Engholm G. Effect of organized screening on incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in Denmark. Cancer Res. 1989 Apr 15;49(8):2157–2160. [PubMed]
  • Lynge E, Engholm G, Madsen M. Organiseret screenings betydning for udviklingen af livmoderhalskraeft i Danmark i 1968-1987. Ugeskr Laeger. 1992 May 4;154(19):1330–1334. [PubMed]
  • Lără E, Day NE, Hakama M. Trends in mortality from cervical cancer in the Nordic countries: association with organised screening programmes. Lancet. 1987 May 30;1(8544):1247–1249. [PubMed]
  • Miller AB, Anderson G, Brisson J, Laidlaw J, Le Pitre N, Malcolmson P, Mirwaldt P, Stuart G, Sullivan W. Report of a National Workshop on Screening for Cancer of the Cervix. CMAJ. 1991 Nov 15;145(10):1301–1325. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Mitchell H. Pap smears collected by nurse practitioners: a comparison with smears collected by medical practitioners. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1993 Jun;20(5):807–810. [PubMed]
  • Murphy MF, Campbell MJ, Goldblatt PO. Twenty years' screening for cancer of the uterine cervix in Great Britain, 1964-84: further evidence for its ineffectiveness. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1988 Mar;42(1):49–53. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Parkin DM, Nguyen-Dinh X, Day NE. The impact of screening on the incidence of cervical cancer in England and Wales. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985 Feb;92(2):150–157. [PubMed]
  • Pettersson F, Björkholm E, Näslund I. Evaluation of screening for cervical cancer in Sweden: trends in incidence and mortality 1958-1980. Int J Epidemiol. 1985 Dec;14(4):521–527. [PubMed]

Articles from British Journal of Cancer are provided here courtesy of Cancer Research UK