Related to this topic: Leaflets | Patient+ | Diagrams | UK Guidelines | Online Videos | Weblinks | Poem/Story | Equipment | Books | Your Experience | Other resources | Glossaries
Print options: Printer friendly version of this leaflet (html)     Other options:  AddThis Social Bookmark Button (what's this?)

PatientPlus articles are written for doctors and so the language can be technical. However, some people find that they add depth to the articles found in the other sections of this website which are written for non-medical people.

Cervical Screening (Cervical Smear Test)

The Benefits of Screening

The annual incidence of cervical cancer in the UK was approximately 9.7 per 100,000 in 2003. 85-90% are squamous cell cancers, and approximately 15% are adenocarcinomas, which are more difficult to detect.1
The cervical screening programme has not been without its critics, who have commented that the resulting reduction in mortality has been too small to justify the financial and psychosocial costs. However, cervical cancer rates in 2004 (2.8 per 100,000 females) were more than 60% lower than they were in 1975 (7.5 per 100,000 females). At least some of this decline has been due to the introduction of the NHS Cervical Screening Programme in 1987.2 One analysis of mortality trends before and after the introduction of screening in the UK concluded that screening prevented an epidemic of cervical cancer, and that the programme is likely to prevent approximately 5000 deaths per year (in financial terms, a saving of about £36,000 per life).3

Coverage of the programme

All women between the ages of 25-64 are eligible for screening.
As a result of evidence published in 2003, the NHS Screening Programme now offers screening at different intervals for different age groups. Women between 25-49 should be screened three yearly and women 50-64 five yearly. Women 65 and over only need to be screened if they have not had a smear since the age of 50, or have had a previously abnormal smear.
The latest published statistics (31st March 2004) showed that 80.6% of eligible women aged 25-64 resident in England had been screened at least once in the previous 5 years. This compared to 81.2% in 2003. In 213 of the 303 Primary Care Organisations the coverage was 80% or higher (226 in 2003).4

The Screening Process

A warmed speculum should be inserted vaginally to view the squamocolumnar junction of the cervix. Liquid-based cytology (LBC) is now the method of choice, as recommended by NICE. A brush is used rather than a spatula, which is rotated against the squamocolumnar junction (usually in the cervical canal). The end of the brush is then broken off into a container of preservative fluid, and sent to the laboratory. LBC is being rolled out nationally, and its availability currently depends upon local resources.1
Older methods include the Papanicolaou (Pap) smear test which uses a brush or the Ayre spatula to sample the ectocervix by rotating it twice through 360 degrees. In both these methods, the material obtained is smeared onto a microscope slide, which is then sprayed with or immersed in a fixative solution prior to transporting to the laboratory.
The advantages of LBC over older methods is that reporting time is reduced, and there are less inadequate smears.1

Interpreting Smear Results5

Cells are analysed to look for abnormalities in the appearance of the nucleus and other aspects of cell morphology (dyskaryosis). There is some lack of standardisation among laboratories, but basically one can expect to see one of the following results on a report:

  • Negative - endocervical cells with normal nuclei are seen.
  • Inadequate - the average national rate for inadequate smears is about 9%. Inadequate smears may be caused by insufficient or unsuitable material on the smear, inadequate fixation, poor spreading of the material on the slide, the presence of pus, blood or inflammatory exudate, or excessive cytolysis (this may be due to drying out of the smear, or hormone therapy).
  • Borderline - this is reported in approximately 5% of smears. Cells are seen with abnormal nuclei, but the pathologist cannot say for certain they are indicative of dyskaryosis. Many patients revert to normal smears eventually. Human papilloma virus (HPV) infection is sometimes found in this group. Very few of these patients go on to develop cancer.
  • Mild dyskaryosis - this occurs in approximately 5% of smears. Again, many women with this finding eventually revert to normal smears. HPV infection is a common association. Strictly speaking the cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grading system should not be used on smears but on cervical biopsy material obtained during colposcopy. However, mild dyskaryosis usually equates to CIN1. Cancer is very unlikely.
  • Moderate dyskaryosis - this usually equates to CIN2 and is seen in approximately 1% of samples. CIN2 is considered a pre-cancerous condition with an intermediate probability of developing into cancer.
  • Severe dyskaryosis - this usually equates to CIN3. It occurs in about 0.5% of smears and is at the higher risk end of the cancer spectrum. About 0.1% of smears will show nuclear and other cellular changes suggestive of invasive carcinoma, sometimes referred to as carcinoma in situ.
  • Glandular neoplasia - occasionally abnormalities of glandular cells are seen, suggestive of adenocarcinoma in situ, adenocarcinoma of the cervix, endometrial adenocarcinoma, or adenocarcinoma of an organ outside the uterus.
Test Limitations

The limitations of Pap smears include variable sampling of cervical cells, poor transfer of cellular material onto the glass slide and sub-optimal preparation and fixation by the smear taker. It is hoped that the widespread introduction of LBC will help to reduce the inadequate rate. The inadequate is 9.1% with Pap smears compared to 1.6% with LBC. LBC is also 12% more sensitive than older methods.1It should be remembered that cervical screening is but one strand of several approaches that should be taken in the continued battle against cervical cancer. Despite the screening programme, 3200 new cases of cervical cancer are seen each year. Some authorities view the condition as an entirely preventable disease and it has been suggested that each new case should be subject to a confidential enquiry in a similar manner to maternal deaths. Such an enquiry should address any failures of the screening process itself, contact tracing of HPV carriers, and access to secondary care.6

Screening Protocols5

Recall Protocol For Negative Screening Results

History

Action

No previous cervical screening history
Previous abnormal screening
Previously treated for CIN
Routine recall
Previous screening results negative Routine recall
Women aged 65* and over with no
previous negative screening history
Three negative tests, 3 years apart then
no further recall
Previous abnormal screening For minor abnormalities (borderline and mild
dyskaryosis) follow protocol for the particular
abnormality -see Table 2
Previously treated for CIN Follow up protocol for patients treated
for CIN- see below
Previous CIN1
(not treated)
At least 3 negative tests, 6-12 months apart
then routine recall

Management of Dysplasia (Dyskaryosis) on Cervical Smear

Result

Action

Negative
  • Investigate and manage incidental findings (e.g. infections).
  • Ensure that the patient is informed of the result.
  • Recall as appropriate for a negative result.
Inadequate
  • Repeat sample immediately after treating any infection or atrophy, preferably within 3 months
  • Repeat sample as soon as convenient if technically inadequate
  • If persistent (3 inadequate samples), advise assessment by colposcopy7
Borderline
  • Borderline nuclear change in endocervical cells - refer for colposcopy.

  • Borderline nuclear change in squamous cells

    • Treat any associated condition and repeat the screen at no more than 6 months (particularly important where there
      is an association with HPV).
      The majority of smears will return to normal by this stage.
    • Refer for colposcopy if there are 3 smears in a series reported as borderline nuclear change in squamous cells) without the woman being returned to routine recall, or 3 borderline or more severe results in a 10 year period.
    • Three consecutive negative results, 6 months apart, are required before returning to routine recall.
    • Repeat sample in 3-6 months when the differential diagnosis is between benign/reactive changes and higher
      degrees of dyskaryosis or possible glandular neoplasia.
    • The laboratory may recommend a repeat screening in a shorter interval, or that gynaecological referral should be considered.
Mild Dyskaryosis
  • Ideally, women should be referred for colposcopy after one mild dyskaryotic smear, but it remains acceptable to recommend a repeat test within 6 months - many will have returned to normal by this stage.
  • Always refer for colposcopy after two tests reported as mild dyskaryosis
    without a return to routine recall.
  • If a single mild dyskaryotic result is obtained after treatment for CIN2 or worse, refer for colposcopy.
  • Three consecutive negative results, 6 months apart, are required before returning to routine recall.
  • If in a 10 year period there are 3 borderline or more severe results, refer to colposcopy.
Moderate Dyskaryosis Refer for colposcopy.
Severe Dyskaryosis Refer for colposcopy.


Document references
  1. Cervical cancer - cervical screening, NICE Technology Appraisal (Oct 2003); Liquid-based cytology for cervical screening (review)
  2. UK Cervical Cancer mortality statistics, Cancer Research UK, 2006
  3. Peto J, Gilham C, Fletcher O, et al; The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK. Lancet. 2004 Jul 17-23;364(9430):249-56. [abstract]
  4. Department of Health Statistics; Cervical Screening Programme, England: 2003-04
  5. Cervical smear results explained: a guide for primary care; Bankhead C, Austoker J, Davey C 2003
  6. Markos AR; Cervical cancer: a confidential enquiry is needed. J R Soc Med. 2003 Jul;96(7):318-9.
  7. Colposcopy and Programme Management: Guidelines for the NHS Cervical Screening Programme, NHS Cancer Screening Programme (2004)
Acknowledgements EMIS is grateful to Dr Laurence Knott for writing this article. The final copy has passed scrutiny by the independent Mentor GP reviewing team. ©EMIS 2007.
DocID: 1929
Document Version: 21
DocRef: bgp1815
Last Updated: 19 Dec 2006
Review Date: 18 Dec 2008






















Disclaimer: Patient UK has no control of the content of the above links. Inclusion does not imply endorsement by Patient UK.

Advertise on this site














Disclaimer: Patient UK has no control of the content of the above links. Inclusion does not imply endorsement by Patient UK.

Advertise on this site


PS - Health and Poverty

Perhaps the biggest cause of ill health in the world is poverty. Help to Make Poverty History. For example, why not lend some of your money to disadvantaged communities to enable them to trade their way out of poverty through schemes such as Shared Interest.

See also MAKEPOVERTYHISTORY North East for details and links to campaigns against poverty.

^ Top of Page