The Relationship Between Pap Smear Screening Adherence and Cervical Cancer Mortality: A Systematic Review
Keywords:
Cervical Cancer, Mortality, Pap Smear, Screening Adherence, Systematic Review, Observational Studies, Newcastle-Ottawa ScaleAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Cervical cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality for women globally, with a disproportionate burden concentrated in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (World Health Organization, 2024). This significant disparity is largely attributable to inadequate implementation of, and adherence to, preventive screening programs (Bray et al., 2024). This systematic review synthetically evaluates the quantitative association between adherence to Papanicolaou (Pap) smear screening and cervical cancer mortality.
METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al., 2021). Major electronic databases (including PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science) were searched for observational studies (cohort and case-control) that assessed cervical cancer mortality or the incidence of invasive cervical cancer as an outcome of cytology screening history (Peirson et al., 2013). Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), the standard, validated tool for non-randomized studies (Wells et al., 2000).
RESULTS: A total of 16 high-impact observational studies met the inclusion criteria. The findings are overwhelmingly consistent and statistically significant in demonstrating a profound protective effect. Large-scale cohort studies demonstrate that women adhering to screening have a substantially lower risk of mortality; one major study found a 70% reduction in cervical cancer mortality (Hazard Ratio: 0.30; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.12–0.74) (Makino et al., 2006). Case-control studies report exceptionally strong protective effects, with odds ratios (OR) for mortality as low as 0.08 (95% CI: 0.07–0.09) (Landy et al., 2016) and 0.34 (95% CI: 0.14–0.49) (Lönnberg et al., 2013). Furthermore, a meta-analysis of case-control studies on invasive cancer (the precursor to mortality) found a pooled protective effect (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.30–0.41), signifying an approximate 65% reduction in risk (Peirson et al., 2013).
DISCUSSION: The evidence irrefutably confirms a significant inverse relationship between screening adherence and mortality. The epidemiological findings demonstrate that the public health failure is not one of diagnostic efficacy but of implementation. This discussion synthesizes the quantitative efficacy of screening with the major documented barriers—economic, psychosocial, cultural, and provider-level—that suppress adherence rates and perpetuate this preventable mortality (Akin-Odanye et al., 2024).
CONCLUSION: Adherence to Pap smear screening is a critical, primary determinant in the prevention of cervical cancer mortality. Public health strategies must shift from proving efficacy to aggressively dismantling the known structural and psychosocial barriers to adherence to achieve global elimination targets.
References
Akin-Odanye, E.O., E-V, O., Olaseha, I., and O, O. (2024). Barriers and facilitators of Pap smear screening uptake among women in Asia: a systematic review. PLoS ONE, 19(2), e0297395.
Andrae, B., Brinton, L.A., and Wentzensen, N. (2008). Screening history and risk of cervical cancer: a case-control study in Sweden. International Journal of Cancer, 123(7), 1642-1649.
Andrae, B., Kemetli, L., Sparen, P., et al. (2012). Screening-preventable cancer-cure proportions and stage at diagnosis in women with cervical cancer in Sweden. BMJ, 344, e1641.
Arbyn, M., Anttila, A., Jordan, J., et al. (2020). Effect of organised cervical cancer screening on cervical cancer mortality in Europe: A systematic review. European Journal of Cancer, 127, 207–223.
Arbyn, M., Smith, S.B., Temin, S., et al. (2018). Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses. BMJ, 363, k4823.
Aristizabal, N., Cuevo, J., Gaitan, E., and Over, E. (1984). Effect of screening on the risk of cervical cancer in Cali, Colombia. Cancer Detection and Prevention, 7(2), 119-125.
Austad, K., Chary, A., Lee, S., et al. (2018). Perspectives of women and health providers on human papillomavirus self-sampling in a low-resource setting. Journal of Global Oncology, 4, 1-10.
Bergström, R., Adami, H.O., Gustafsson, L., et al. (1999). Rapid fall in relative risk of cervical cancer among women reporting a previous negative smear. International Journal of Cancer, 80(3), 361-364.
Berrino, F., Gatta, G., d'Alto, M., et al. (1986). Efficacy of screening in preventing invasive cervical cancer: a case-control study in Milan, Italy. International Journal of Cancer, 38(5), 653-658.
Bray, F., Laversanne, M., Sung, H., et al. (2024). Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 74(3), 229-263.
Cetin, N., Terzioglu, F., and B, G. (2019). Psychosocial barriers to pap smear screening in a group of Turkish women. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Investigations, 10(2), em00724.
Clarke, E.A. and Anderson, T.W. (1979). Does screening by "Pap" smears help prevent cervical cancer? A case-control study. The Lancet, 2(8132), 1-4.
Dugue, P.A., Rebolj, M., et al. (2014). Organised cervical screening in Denmark and the importance of screening history. European Journal of Cancer Prevention, 23(6), 517-523.
Hernández-Avila, M., Lazcano-Ponce, E., Alonso De Ruíz, P., et al. (1998). Evaluation of the cervical cancer screening programme in Mexico: A population-based case-control study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 27(3), 370–376.
Herrero, R., Brinton, L.A., Reeves, W.C., et al. (1992). Screening for cervical cancer in Latin America: a case-control study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 21(6), 1050-1056.
Higgins, J.P.T., Altman, D.G., Gøtzsche, P.C., et al. (2011). The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 343, d5928.
Hoffman, M., Cooper, D., Carrara, H., et al. (2003). Limited Pap screening associated with reduced risk of cervical cancer in South Africa. International Journal of Cancer, 107(2), 298-301.
Jansen, E.E.L., Zielonke, N., Gini, A., et al. (2020). Effect of organised cervical cancer screening on cervical cancer mortality in Europe: a systematic review. European Journal of Cancer, 127, 207-223.
Kasinpila, C., Sirikul, N., Promthet, S., et al. (2011). Evaluation of the nationwide cervical screening programme in Thailand: a case-control study. Journal of Medical Screening, 18(3), 147-153.
La Vecchia, C., Franceschi, S., Decarli, A., et al. (1984). "Pap" smear and the risk of cervical neoplasia: quantitative estimates from a case-control study. The Lancet, 2(8406), 779-782.
Lambert, C.C., Chandler, R., McMillan, S., et al. (2015). Pap test adherence, cervical cancer perceptions, and HPV knowledge among HIV-infected women in a community health setting. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 26(2), 134-145.
Landy, R., Pesola, F., et al. (2016). Impact of cervical screening on cervical cancer mortality: estimation using stage-specific results from a nested case-control study. British Journal of Cancer, 115(9), 1140-1146.
Lazcano-Ponce, E., Castro, R., et al. (2002). Barriers to cancer screening in Mexico. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs, 2002(30), 71-74.
Lo, C.K.L., Mertz, D., and Loeb, M. (2014). Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: an assessment of its quality, and practical tips. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, 107.
Lönnberg, S., Anttila, A., et al. (2013). Impact of the Finnish cervical cancer screening programme on cervical cancer mortality: a case-control study. BMJ, 346, f1804.
Mählck, C.G., Jönsson, H., et al. (1994). The effect of cervical screening on the incidence of invasive cancer. European Journal of Cancer, 30(2), 224-227.
Makino, H., et al. (2006). Effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Screening Over Cervical Cancer Mortality Among Japanese Women. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, 36(8), 511–515.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D.G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
Musa, J., Achenbach, C.J., O'Dwyer, L.C., et al. (2017). Effect of cervical cancer education and provider recommendation for screening on screening rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 12(9), e0183924.
Nelson, W., Moser, R.P., et al. (2013). The association between insurance status and cervical cancer screening in community health centers. Preventing Chronic Disease, 10, E173.
Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.
Peirson, L., Fitzpatrick-Lewis, D., Ciliska, D., et al. (2013). Screening for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews, 2(1), 35.
Peterson, E.B., Ostroff, J.S., et al. (2017). Impact of provider-patient communication on cancer screening adherence: A systematic review. Preventive Medicine, 105, 99-106.
Sankaranarayanan, R., Nene, B.M., Shastri, S.S., et al. (2009). Effect of a single round of screening with visual inspection, cytology, and HPV testing on cervical cancer mortality in rural India: a cluster randomised trial. The Lancet, 374(9683), 34-42.
Schiffman, M. and Wentzensen, N. (2021). From human papillomavirus to cervical cancer. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 138(4), 543-550.
Solehati, T., Imansari, B., Madiu, D., and Mediani, H.S. (2020). Effect of Cervical Cancer Education and Provider Recommendation for Screening: A Systematic Review. Journal of Nursing Research, 28(6), e121.
Stang, A. (2010). Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. European Journal of Epidemiology, 25(9), 603-605.
Talbott, E.O., Norman, S.A., Kuller, L.H., et al. (1995). Refining preventive strategies for invasive cervical cancer: a population-based case-control study. Journal of Women's Health, 4(4), 415-424.
Wells, G., Shea, B., O'Connell, D., et al. (2000). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomized Studies in Meta-Analysis. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2024). Cervical Cancer.. Updated 5 March 2024. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cervical-cancer
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Bangar Parlinggoman Tua, Yahya Nurlianto, Mutia Juliana (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors publishing here keep copyright but grant the journal first publication rights, under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License. They can distribute their work non-exclusively elsewhere with an acknowledgment of its first publication in this journal. Posting the work online before and during submission for earlier and greater citation is encouraged, reflecting Open Access benefits.
