Results of Cervical Cancer Screening in the Rural Population of Lucknow West, India, through a Camp Approach

Abstract

Objective: Cytological screening was carried out in rural women of Lucknow West, India, through a camp approach to detect cervical cancer in its preinvasive phase and to see whether the primitive living conditions in the villages have any effect on the incidence of precancer and carcinoma of the cervix and the associated predisposing factors of cervical carcinogenesis. Study Design: During a span of 4 years (May 2013 to March 2017), a total of 135 camps were organized under the auspice of Era’s Lucknow Medical College and Hospital (Lucknow, India). Only 4,269 (31.2%) out of 13,500 women who were motivated and counseled attended the camp and 2,369 (55.1%) of them underwent a Pap smear examination. Results: The incidence of squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix (SIL) was found to be very high (18.2%) in the 2,369 women who were screened, but the majority of them were of a low grade. The SIL incidence was very high for all predisposing factors like gynaecological symptoms, age, and clinical lesions of the cervix. However, the SIL rate showed a rise with increasing parity. Candida albicans was more common in rural women (4.7%) than Trichomonas vaginalis (1.1%), and a low incidence of viral sexually transmitted diseases (STD) was seen. Conclusions: Organizing camps in the villages through proper counseling and motivation may help in the screening of larger numbers of women for early detection of cervical cancer, the adequate treatment of which will check the progression of the disease and thus minimize the incidence of carcinoma of the cervix and its associated mortality in the rural population of India.

Implementation strategies of cervical cancer screening in South Asia: A systematic review

“…Out of the initial 1135 articles reviewed systematically, twenty‐three studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis of results 19–41 . The characteristics of the reviewed studies are summarized in Table 1.…”