Background:Endometrial cancer is the most common gynaecological cancer in the western world, the incidence increasing in the United Kingdom by over 40% since 1993. Two types of endometrial cancer exist – oestrogen-dependent type 1 with good prognosis and non-oestrogen-dependent type 2 with poor prognosis. The histopathological distribution of the increase in endometrial cancer is unknown. This study investigates the observed incidence trends of the two types, the age, stage, and socioeconomic distribution of this increase and survival outcome.Methods:Data were analysed from 6867 women with endometrial cancer registered between 1994 and 2006, at a UK population-based cancer registry.Results:Increased endometrial cancer incidence is confined to type 1 cancers with a significant increase in age standardised incidence rate (ASR) from 12.0 per 100 000 (confidence interval (CI) 10.7–13.2) in 1994 to 16.3 per 100 000 (CI 14.9–17.7), P<0.001 in 2006, while ASR of type 2 cancer changed from 2.5 per 100 000 (CI 2.0–3.1) in 1994 to 2.2 per 100 000 (CI 1.7–2.7) in 2006, which was not statistically significant P>0.05. Increase in type 1 cancer is most marked in age groups 60–69 years (P<0.001) and 70–79 years (P<0.001) and distributed equally among socioeconomic quintiles. While outcome for type 1 cancer has improved, 1-year survival in type 2 cancer is unchanged from 73.1% in 1994 to 74.3%, P=0.089 and 5-year survival decreased from 55.1% to 40.9%, P=0.001.Conclusion:Increased incidence in endometrial cancer is confined to type 1 cancers, seen most in the 60–79 age groups and across all socioeconomic quintiles. Survival in type 2 cancer has decreased significantly. Urgent research is needed to investigate prevention strategies in type 1 and improve therapy in type 2 cancers.

Introduction In England, routine invitations for cervical screening were reduced between April 2020 and June 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We quantify the impact of COVID-19 disruptions on attendance and excess diagnoses of cervical cancer (CC). Methods Using Public Health England CC screening data on laboratory samples received in 2018 as a baseline we quantify the reduction in screening attendances due to the COVID-19 pandemic between April 2020 and March 2021 for women aged 25–64. We model the impact on excess CC diagnoses assuming once invitations resume 87.5% of women attend within 12 months and 12.5% delay screening for 3 or 5 years (depending on age). Results The number of samples received at laboratories was 91% lower than expected during April, 85% during May and 43% during June 2020 compared to the same period in 2018. Although on average laboratories received 12.6% more samples between August 2020 and April 2021 than over the same months in 2018, by April 2021 there was a short fall of 200,949 samples (6.4% fewer than in 2018). An excess of 41 CC (4.0 per 100,000 women with a maximum screening delay of 12 months) are predicted to occur among the estimated 1,024,794 women attending this screening round with a delay. An excess of 60 CC (41.0 per 100,000 women) are predicted to occur among the estimated 146,391 women who do not attend this screening round. Conclusion Prompt restoration of cervical screening services limited the impact on excess CC diagnoses. However, in 2020 a 6.4% shortfall of screening samples was observed. Every effort should be made to reassure these women that services are open and safe to attend.

Multidisciplinary colposcopy pathology meetings provide a valuable data resource for recording and analyzing challenging areas in the clinical management of women with abnormal cervical cytology. However, such meetings are time and labor intensive both in terms of personnel and preparation. National guidelines need to be developed to guide clinicians on the frequency and standards required from such meetings.

The available evidence is still insufficient to recommend implementation of automated image analysis systems. The priority for action remains further research, particularly the 'clinical effectiveness' of the AutoPap GS System. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of introducing automation alongside other approaches is also a priority.