The Continuing Increase in Adenocarcinoma of the Uterine Cervix: A Birth Cohort Phenomenon

Zheng, Tongzhang; Holford, Theodore R.; Ma, Zheng; Chen, Yating; Li, Wenliang; Ward, Barbara A.; Boyle, Peter

doi:10.1093/ije/25.2.252

Cited by 96 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We used the same database but extended the analysis to an additional 5 years, making short-term fluctuations in AC incidence less important. This unchanged AC incidence contrasts with the incidence rates reported from other countries where it is rising (Zheng et al, 1996;Vizcaino et al, 1998;Bergstrom et al, 1999;Plaxe and Saltzstein, 1999;Smith et al, 2000;Liu et al, 2001;Sasieni and Adams, 2001;Visioli et al, 2004;Wang et al, 2004;Bray et al, 2005). However, a stable pattern has been reported more often (Vizcaino et al, 1998;Chan et al, 2003;Bulk et al, 2005), although a decreasing incidence has also been recorded (Vizcaino et al, 1998;Bray et al, 2005;Howlett et al, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…The incidences of both have increased during the last three decades, especially in women under the age of 40 years (Zheng et al, 1996;Vizcaino et al, 1998;Bergstrom et al, 1999;Plaxe and Saltzstein, 1999;Smith et al, 2000;Liu et al, 2001;Sasieni and Adams, 2001;Visioli et al, 2004;Wang et al, 2004;Bray et al, 2005). This contrasts with the decrease in squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) since the introduction of screening programmes (Bergstrom et al, 1999;Ronco et al, 2005;Kyndi et al, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Significant decrease of adenocarcinoma in situ not reflected in cervical adenocarcinoma incidence in the Netherlands 1989–2003

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Significant decrease of adenocarcinoma in situ not reflected in cervical adenocarcinoma incidence in the Netherlands 1989–2003

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the human papillomavirus (HPV) is causative for both, epidemiologic studies suggest that these two histopathologic types may differ by risk factor profiles (1)(2)(3)(4)(5), patterns of detection by screening (6, 7), incidence rate trends (8)(9)(10), clinical characteristics (11), and outcomes (12)(13)(14). Therefore, to evaluate further potential etiologic differences by histopathologic type, we systematically examined incidence rate patterns for invasive squamous cell carcinomas and adenocarcinomas in the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Etiologic Heterogeneity for Cervical Carcinoma by Histopathologic Type, Using Comparative Age-Period-Cohort Models

Reimers

Anderson

Rosenberg

et al. 2009

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &Amp; Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Cervical carcinomas comprise two main histopathologic types, squamous cell carcinomas and adenocarcinomas. Human papillomavirus (HPV) infections are causative for both types but the respective tumors may have different carcinogenic pathways. Methods: To assess potential etiologic heterogeneity of cervical cancer by histopathologic type, we examined invasive squamous cell carcinomas and adenocarcinoma cervical cancer incidence rates in the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. We complemented standard descriptive epidemiology with comparative age-period-cohort (APC) models fitted to each histopathologic type. Results: Squamous cell tumors (n = 25,219) were nearly 5-fold more common than adenocarcinomas (n = 5,451). Age-adjusted incidence trends decreased for squamous cell carcinomas but increased for adenocarcinomas. Cross-sectional age-specific incidence rates increased more rapidly for squamous cell carcinomas than

show abstract

“…An increase in the absolute incidence of adenocarcinoma has been observed among workers in some countries and among some subpopulations. Smith 3 and Sasieni and Adams reported a 14-fold increase in incidence in English women born in the early 1960s compared with women born before 1935. 4 Nevertheless, Smith et al suggested the possibility of improved prognosis for patients with adenocarcinoma of the cervix in some population groups in recent years, 1,2 perhaps due to earlier disease stage at diagnosis as a result of screening; and Herbert et al demonstrated that screen-detected adenocarcinomas tended to be lower-stage malignancies compared with symptomatic adenocarcinomas, suggesting the occurrence of downstaging due to screening.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix

Ruba

Schoolland

Allpress

et al. 2004

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND.Little attention has been given to the reasons for failure to detect adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) of the uterine cervix in Papanicolaou (Pap) smears. In the current study, the authors examined a series of screening or diagnostic errors in cases in which the final histologic diagnosis was either AIS or AIS combined with a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (AIS ϩ HSIL). METHODS.Smears obtained in the 3 years before histologically proven AIS or AIS ϩ HSIL was diagnosed and within a specified 6-year period (1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998) were reviewed and reclassified. All were conventional Pap smears. The smears studied were those with a review diagnosis of possible or definite high-grade epithelial abnormality that initially were reported by a cytotechnologist to be negative (screening error) or that were reported by a pathologist to be negative, unsatisfactory, or indicative of a low-grade epithelial abnormality (diagnostic error). A semiquantitative, blinded assessment of the frequency of cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of AIS was made for smears with erroneous diagnoses compared with a series of smears that yielded true-positive findings. CONCLUSIONS. Sampling errors were the main cause of false-negative reports in cases of AIS and AIS ϩ HSIL. The primary factors that contributed to screening or diagnostic errors in AIS were minimal, poorly preserved abnormal material and an overly conservative approach to the assessment of unusual large sheets or aggregates of glandular cells. With regard to AIS ϩ HSIL, most laboratory errors were related to the presence of crowded groups of squamous epithelial cells. There were fewer errors in the last 3 years of the study, raising the possibility of improvement over time. RESULTS.

show abstract

The Continuing Increase in Adenocarcinoma of the Uterine Cervix: A Birth Cohort Phenomenon

Cited by 96 publications

References 22 publications

Significant decrease of adenocarcinoma in situ not reflected in cervical adenocarcinoma incidence in the Netherlands 1989–2003

Significant decrease of adenocarcinoma in situ not reflected in cervical adenocarcinoma incidence in the Netherlands 1989–2003

Etiologic Heterogeneity for Cervical Carcinoma by Histopathologic Type, Using Comparative Age-Period-Cohort Models

Adenocarcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About