Background: State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) scale was developed in the 1980's and has been widely used both in clinical settings and in research. However the Danish version of STAI has not been validated. The aim of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of STAI-state anxiety scale in Danish women aged 45 years and older with abnormal cervical cancer screening results. Methods: Women ≥45 years referred with an abnormal cervical cytology and healthy volunteers (n = 12) underwent cognitive interview after completing STAI. Further, STAI was sent out in an electronic questionnaire to women (n = 109) seen at the gynecological department with abnormal cervical cancer screening test during 2018. Validity and reliability of STAI was evaluated according to the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist by examining internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error, floor and ceiling, construct validity and content validity. Results: In the cognitive interviews the content validity was evaluated to be very good. The internal consistency of the scale was excellent with Cronbach's α = 0.93. Test-retest reliability was good with an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.80 and the systematic difference between test-retest results was negligible. The construct validity was good. Conclusion: To our best knowledge, this is the first validation study of the Danish translation of STAI-state anxiety scale. This version of STAI demonstrates an acceptable reliability and validity when used in a gynecological setting.

Objective To compare the proportion of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+) in cervical biopsies with that in large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) specimens in women aged ≥45 years with transformation zone type 3 (TZ3). Design Multicentre cross‐sectional study. Setting Three colposcopy clinics in the Central Denmark Region. Population Women aged ≥45 years referred to colposcopy as a result of a positive human papillomavirus (HPV) test and/or abnormal cytology and with TZ3 at colposcopy. Methods Women had multiple biopsies taken and an LLETZ was performed. Main outcome measures Histologically confirmed CIN2+ in biopsies compared with that in LLETZ specimens. Results Of 166 eligible women at colposcopy, 102 women with paired data from biopsies and LLETZ specimens were included for final analysis. The median age was 67.7 years (IQR 62.6–70.4 years), and most were postmenopausal (94.1%) and had undergone HPV‐based screening (81.3%). The CIN2+ detection rate was significantly higher in LLETZ specimens than in biopsies (32.4% vs 14.7%, difference 17.7%, 95% CI 6.3–29.0%), resulting in more than half of CIN2+ cases being missed in biopsies (54.5%, 95% CI 36.4–71.9%). The overall agreement between biopsies and LLETZ was 82.4% (95% CI 73.6–89.2%). Conclusions CIN2+ detection is underestimated in women aged ≥45 years with TZ3 if detection relies on the results of biopsies alone. To reduce the risk of underdiagnosis and overtreatment, future studies should explore the use of new biomarkers for risk stratification to improve discrimination between women at increased risk of CIN2+ who need to undergo LLETZ and women who may undergo follow‐up.

No abstract

Background: The incidence of cervical cancer peaks around the age of 75 years, and elderly patients are more frequently diagnosed with advanced-stage cervical cancer than younger patients. There is considerable practice variation regarding follow-up of elderly patients with abnormal cervical test results at risk of cervical cancer, both nationally and internationally, due to uncertainty about risks and benefits for this particular patient group. The treatment preferences of these patients are, however, poorly described in the current literature. The aim of this study was to explore elderly patients' experiences with abnormal cervical test results and preferences for follow-up. Materials and Methods: We performed focus group interviews with seventeen Danish patients aged 60-79 years who had undergone biopsy and colposcopy in gynaecological outpatient clinics or at private gynaecologists due to a positive human papillomavirus (HPV) test result and/or abnormal cytology. A focus group interview guide was designed to cover experiences with abnormal cervical test results, including realistic risk and benefit scenarios related to underdiagnosis and overtreatment. Data were analysed thematically using a phenomenological approach. Results: The patients were surprised that elderly could also have an HPV infection. Most preferred treatment and follow-up at the gynaecologist over continuous control visits at the general practitioner. In case of persistent HPV infection and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, a quick solution including cone biopsy was preferred even if it carried a risk of overtreatment. The patients wanted clear recommendations and demonstrated considerable intolerance towards healthcare professionals' clinical uncertainty regarding optimum follow-up. Conclusion: Most elderly patients wanted closure involving cone biopsy, and they expressed tolerance towards overtreatment to reduce their risk of cervical cancer. Thus, clinicians should present known risks and benefits to elderly patients facing risk of overtreatment after abnormal cervical test results.