Treatment Uptake Indicators

Cervical screening is important to expedite elimination of cervical cancer, as it will take decades for the impact of HPV vaccination to be reflected in overall cervical cancer incidence (1,2). For screening to prevent cervical cancer, treatment of screen-detected high-grade abnormalities is essential.

A target has been set in the WHO strategy to accelerate elimination of cervical cancer for treatment of women with identified disease (1). Australia has raised the target to 95% as a commitment to achieving equity in elimination (2). 

In 2023, there were 12,785 women diagnosed with histologically-confirmed high-grade cervical disease (12,258 aged 25-74 years) in Australia. Overall, 54.6%, 82.7%, and 86.5% were treated within 8 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively (Figure 9.1). Nationally, there was a small decrease in the proportion treated within in each timeframe in 2023 compared to those with high-grade cervical disease detected in 2022.

The WHO target of 90% treated was not met within 8 weeks in any group but was met by 6 months among women diagnosed with AIS and those aged 60-64 years (Figure 9.2). By 12 months, the 90% target was additionally met in Western Australia, among those with CIN3, and in all age groups between 40-54 years. While the proportion treated did not reach 90% within 12 months in any geographic category (state/territory, remoteness, area-level SES) apart from WA, it exceeded 85% everywhere except Victoria (84.7%). The Australian target of 95% treated was not met in any timeframe for any category considered in this report. 

The proportion treated was higher at 8 weeks and 6 months for non-Indigenous women than it was for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. The difference was much more pronounced at 8 weeks (55.0% vs 49.8%) but had narrowed at 6 months (83.7% vs 82.0%) and by 12 months the proportion treated was slightly higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women (88.0% vs 87.6%). 

The proportion treated within 8 weeks and 6 months was lowest in very remote areas, but at 12 months the proportion treated was higher in very remote areas than it was in major cities. Since 2020 the proportion treated within 12 months has progressively increased in very remote areas, while it has progressively decreased in major cities. In fact, the proportion treated decreased in major cities between 2020 and 2023 within every timeframe considered, and this pattern was generally true in inner and outer regional areas too.  While there is some degree of correlation between remoteness and area-level SES, it is notable that the fairly consistent decline since 2020 in major cities and inner/outer regional areas was not directly mirrored in any SES group other than the middle quintile, and to some extent in the second highest SES quintile. The proportion treated within 12 months was below 80% among those outside the screening age range (aged <25 or 75+); and in those whose high-grade lesion was 'HSIL not otherwise specified'. 

There was some variation in the proportion treated within 8 weeks by remoteness area and state/ territory (range: 44.2%-55.5% for remoteness area; 47.5%-59.0% for state/ territories). The variation had become relatively smaller by 6 months for remoteness area (range: 80.4-84.4%) and by 12 months for state/ territory (range: 84.7-90.2%).

Source: Analysis of NCSR data (NCSR RDE 11/07/2025, data extracted on 11 July 2025); data prepared by the Screening Analysis and Monitoring Unit of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

High-grade abnormality is defined as HSIL NOS (S3.1), HSIL-CIN2 (S3.2), HSIL-CIN3 (S3.3), or AIS (E3.2, E3.3). A record of ablative or excisional treatment is identified through any of colposcopy records, histology records, or MBS claims for ablative or excisional treatment or a hysterectomy. Date of diagnosis is defined as the biopsy sample collection date and allows for treatment on the same date as biopsy. The proportion of people treated is reported as a crude rate across all ages, as for most demographic groups, age-specific data were not available in sufficient detail to allow for age-standardisation or restriction to ages 25-74.

Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander identification was based on whether a person had ever self-reported their status, as recorded in the National Cancer Screening Register (3). People with no recorded Indigenous status are excluded from the results stratified by Indigenous status.

In previous reports, aggregated results for this indicator have been provided directly by the National Cancer Screening Register (NCSR), whereas this year they have been provided by AIHW, based on a raw data extract data from the NCSR.  Provision by AIHW has been made possible as MBS claims are now included in the data supplied to AIHW. The values for this indicator are about 1-2 percentage points lower than those previously calculated for the corresponding time periods by the NCSR. This may be due to slight differences in the timing or completeness of the data.

Currently, this series of elimination progress reports is the only source of published data on this indicator in Australia. A combination of colposcopy and histology records, and MBS claims for treatment (including hysterectomy) were used to identify if treatment had occurred. While this was as complete as could be identified using NCSR data, it is possible that some ablative treatments were missed if they were not recorded on colposcopy forms and also not associated with an MBS claim.

Neither the WHO nor Australian target for 2030 stipulate a timeframe over which to measure whether treatment has occurred. We have presented results at multiple timepoints to enable better visibility of whether treatment does eventually occur (by 12 months) as well as whether it occurs in a shorter timeframe, more consistent with best practice (8 weeks; 6 months), but it is not clear to which of the reported timeframes the 90% WHO target and 95% Australian target should apply. Overall, most of those with high-grade cervical disease detected were treated within 8 weeks (and a very large proportion of the remainder had been treated by 6 months), but there were several groups where only a minority were treated within 8 weeks (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, those aged less than 30, those with CIN2 or HSIL not otherwise specified, and those living in outer regional, very remote areas or in the NT).  There was relatively little increase in the proportion of people treated between 6 and 12 months. Even over the relatively long timeframe of 12 months, however, the 90% target was not met in most cases, and Australia did not meet the target nationally. In some cases, there may have been an explicit choice to undergo a period of observation prior to treatment, which the NCSP Guidelines allow for - for example young women or those who had not completed childbearing with CIN2 - which may explain the lower treatment rates in these groups (4).

Data by country of birth are still very incomplete on the NCSR and therefore this measure has not yet been reported by country of birth.

1 World Health Organization. Global strategy to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem. 2020. Available at: https://www.who.int/ publications/i/item/9789240014107.

2 Australian Centre for the Prevention of Cervical Cancer. National strategy for the elimination of cervical cancer in Australia5: A pathway to achieve equitable elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem by 2035. November 2023. Available at : https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/national-strategy-for-the-elimination-of-cervical-cancer-in-australia?language=en  

3 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. National Cervical Screening Program monitoring report 2023, Canberra: AIHW; 2025. Available at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cancer-screening/ncsp-monitoring-report-2025 

4 Cancer Council Australia Cervical Screening Guidelines Working Party. Treatment of high-grade squamous abnormalities. In: National Cervical Screening Program Guidelines 2025. Available at: https://www.cancer.org.au/clinical-guidelines/cervical-cancer-screening/ 

Nationally cervical cancer incidence was 6.4 per 100,000 women (2017–2021) and was higher among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and other population groups (see Indicator 1), showing that invasive cervical cancer continued to occur. Elimination requires not only prevention through vaccination and screening but also timely, guideline-concordant, stage-appropriate treatment and access to supportive and palliative care, including psychosocial and spiritual support for patients and carers. Monitoring cervical cancer management is therefore necessary to ensure appropriate care is being delivered, to identify inequities in treatment and outcomes, and to reduce preventable morbidity and mortality.  

The National Gynae-Oncology Registry (NGOR) is a multi-modular clinical quality registry that monitors variation in care for patients with gynaecological cancers, specifically, cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer and vulvar cancer. Australian hospitals are benchmarked against clinical quality indicators developed for each cancer type, reflecting evidence-based best practice care. (2) In 2024, the Registry commenced collecting data about cervical cancer cases treated at notifying hospitals, which are gradually being onboarded across the country. Data were received for 439 cervical cancer cases diagnosed in 2024 from 30 hospitals/organisations across six States and Territories (with data collection yet to commence in Queensland and the Northern Territory). 

The Registry operates under an opt-out process whereby patients may decline to be included in the Registry completely or be excluded from ongoing follow up. The 2024 opt-out rate across all cancers in the NGOR was 2.2% and was 1.8% for cervical cancer. 

The estimated proportion of cases notified to the Registry compared to expected total diagnoses per jurisdiction ranged from 0% in Queensland (who are yet to start notifying to the NGOR) to 82% in Tasmania, noting that AIHW estimates had projected 946 cases would occur in 2024 (i.e. 46% of the expected number were notified to NGOR) (3). 

Patients were considered as having received treatment if their hospital record indicated that treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy or other targeted therapies) had been administered, irrespective of whether the treatment intent was curative or palliative.  Of the 439 notified cases, 11 (3%) had treatment information missing/not available. Of the remaining 428 cervical cancer cases, 406 (94.9%) received treatment and 22 (5.1%) did not (unpublished data, National Gynae-Oncology Registry 2025). Further details (eg differences by jurisdiction) and an estimate of the proportion of cases who received optimal care were not available for publication at the time of this report but are currently being determined.

In Queensland, a Cancer Quality Index was developed to track progress in delivering safe, quality cancer care within health care services using State level linked data (4). In 2024, Cancer Alliance Queensland (CAQ) tasked an expert panel (the Gynaecological Cancer Subcommittee of the Queensland Cancer Control Safety and Quality Partnership) to undertake a detailed review of the methodology and interpretation of the cervical cancer indicators produced as part of this Index, resulting in a refined methodology to evaluate cervical cancer diagnosis and treatment. An in-depth report, including linkage to cervical screening data, was published in 2025 including all cases of cervical cancer diagnosed in Queensland between 2015 and 2024. (5)

There were 2115 patients diagnosed with cervical cancer in Queensland over the period 2015-2024. The majority were diagnosed at Stage I (54%; stage II 14%; stage III 18%; stage IV 11%; unknown 3.4%) and most diagnoses were squamous cell carcinomas (72%). The median age at diagnosis was 45 years and 31% (586) of the 1886 patients diagnosed at age 25-69 had no prior history of cervical screening recorded on the National Cancer Screening Register.(5)  Treatment was defined as receipt of at least one of definitive resection, intravenous systemic therapy (oral chemotherapy excluded) and radiation therapy within -30 to 365 days of diagnosis (regardless of curative or palliative intent).Of the 2115 patients, 1994 received treatment (94.3%).  This rate declined slightly between the periods 2015-2019 (955/1005, 95.0%) and 2020-2024 (1039/1110, 93.6%). 

As shown in Table 10.1, crude proportions of patients not receiving treatment (and of having diagnostic procedures only) were higher among those: with Stage IV or unknown Stage disease; aged 70 and over, resident in regional areas or in disadvantaged socioeconomic status areas; with 2 or more comorbidities, grade 3/4 or missing tumour differentiation, and  with adenocarcinomas, neuroendocrine or miscellaneous tumour types. After adjusting for other factors, older patients (70+) and those with very advanced or unknown-stage cervical cancer were significantly less likely to receive treatment.  (5) State level findings for quality indicators by type of treatment, developed for the CAQ report, are shown in Table 10.2. Further detail relating to types of treatment received by stage, time period and patient and tumour characteristics are provided in the source report.(5)

Timeliness of access to treatment was measured across four indicators. The first of these measured the time from diagnosis to Large Loop Excision of the Transformation Zone (LLETZ) or cone biopsy as definitive resection for early- stage disease (eg Stage 1A1- 1B1). Overall,83% (214/259) of patients received treatment within 60 days. Factors significantly associated with timely treatment in adjusted analyses were receiving treatment at a private facility and having a more recent diagnosis (2020-2024).(5) 
The second indicator assessed the proportion of patients receiving a hysterectomy or trachelectomy as first treatment who were treated within 60 days. Overall, 46% (312/671) of patients met this benchmark. Significant predictors of timely care in adjusted analyses were Stage above 1A and treatment at a private facility.(5)
The third timeliness indicator measured receipt of intravenous systemic therapy or radiotherapy within 60 days of diagnosis (for those who did not undergo hysterectomy/trachelectomy). Across Queensland 65% (629/967) of patients received IV systemic therapy or radiotherapy within 60 days. In adjusted analysis, timely treatment was significantly associated with residence in a major city, having greater than Stage I disease and first treatment at a private facility.(5)

The fourth timeliness indicator measured time from start of external beam radiotherapy to completion of brachytherapy within 56 days of commencing and found that 73% (556/772) of brachytherapy patients met this benchmark. In adjusted analysis, completion within 56 days was significantly (positively) associated with residence in an outer regional or remote area, Stage I disease (and significantly negatively associated with Stage IV disease or unknown stage), treatment at a private facility and having a more recent diagnosis (2020-2024).(5)

There were 154 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women diagnosed with cervical cancer in Queensland over 2015-2024 with a median age of 44 years. The majority (80%) were squamous cell carcinomas and the most common stage was Stage I 39% (Stage II 13%, Stage III 22%, Stage IV 19%, unknown 6.5%). Overall, 94.8% (146/154) received treatment. Of the eight women with no active cancer treatment,  four women (2.6%) were recorded as undergoing a diagnostic procedure only. Of 21 cases who were resident in remote and very remote areas, all received treatment. (5) 

In relation to the treatment quality indicators amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women:

• 16/42 (38%) who had a hysterectomy had a laparoscopic hysterectomy 
• 5/36 (14%) with Stage I disease had adjuvant treatment following hysterectomy or trachelectomy 
• 58/90 (64%) of those who had radiotherapy received brachytherapy
• 47/68 (69%) with locally advanced disease had brachytherapy 
• 53/58 (91%) of brachytherapy recipients had concurrent intravenous systemic therapy
  
  

In relation to timeliness of treatment indicators amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women:

• 11/13 (85%) received LLETZ or cone biopsy as definitive resection for early stage disease within 60 days of diagnosis
• 11/13 (85%) received LLETZ or cone biopsy as definitive resection for early stage disease within 60 days of diagnosis
• 61/91 (67%) who underwent intravenous systemic therapy or radiation therapy without hysterectomy or trachelectomy commenced treatment within 60 days of diagnosis
• 34/58 (59%) who underwent brachytherapy completed it within 56 days or less

Source: There are currently no national data available reporting cervical cancer treatment rates. However, we sourced interim unpublished subnational data from the National Gynae-Oncology Registry for cases diagnosed and reported in 2024: the Registry is in the process of scaling up reporting to achieve national coverage. (8) Patients were considered as having received treatment if their hospital record indicated that treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy or other targeted therapies) had been administered, irrespective of whether the treatment intent was curative or palliative.  For further details about the Registry see https://ngor.org.au/ 

We also report Queensland state-level linked data from the Queensland Oncology Repository for 2,115 patients diagnosed with cervical cancer in Queensland between 2015 and 2024 as published  by the Cancer Alliance Queensland (CAQ)(5) The Queensland Oncology Repository is a population-based databank designed to support cancer control and quality assurance initiatives across the state. It is continuously updated and consolidates comprehensive information on patient demographics, cancer diagnoses, treatment delivered in both public and private settings and mortality. More than 60 data sources contribute to the repository, including the Queensland Cancer Register, the Queensland Hospital Admitted Patient Data Collection, screening data, clinical information systems, and the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages. 

The Queensland analysis utilises staging primarily obtained through the Queensland Centre for Gynaecological Cancer. Staging from this and other sources have been used as entered contemporaneously over a reporting period which spans both FIGO 2009 and FIGO 2018 staging systems. Treatment was defined as receipt of at least one of definitive resection, intravenous systemic therapy (oral chemotherapy excluded) and radiation therapy within -30 to 365 days of diagnosis. CAQ primarily reports on intravenous systemic therapy (IVST) as this route of administration is routinely and consistently reported on by our providers and sources. Coverage of oral systemic therapy data is limited. Included in the definition of IVST is systemic therapy that is delivered subcutaneously, intrathecally and via intracavitary (intravesical, intra peritoneal). Large Loop Excision of the Transformation Zone (LLETZ) and cone biopsy procedures within 365 days of diagnosis were included as a definitive resection for people diagnosed with stage IA1 - IB1 cervical cancer who did not undergo hysterectomy, trachelectomy, radiation therapy or IV systemic therapy within 365 days of diagnosis. Comorbidities were defined as conditions coded in any admission episode between 12 months before and 12 months after the date of cancer diagnosis inclusive of: AIDS, acute myocardial infarction, cancer (other than the primary cervical cancer diagnosis), cerebrovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, dementia, diabetes, diabetes + complications, hemiplegia or paraplegia, mild liver disease, moderate/severe liver disease, peptic ulcer, peripheral vascular disease, renal disease, rheumatoid disease. Socio economic status was assigned at the SA2 level for Queensland, using the Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD). Those in deciles 1-2 were considered disadvantaged, those in declines 3-8 middle and deciles 9-10 as affluent.

Initial data from the National Gynae-Oncology Registry for 2024 and Queensland data for the period 2015-2024 suggest that around 95% of cervical cancer patients are receiving treatment for their disease. This exceeds the WHO Elimination Strategy treatment target of 90% and is in line with Australia’s treatment uptake goal. However, the extent to which cervical cancer treatment aligns with optimal care, including supportive care, is unknown.  (9). This is important because measuring treatment receipt alone does not indicate whether patients are receiving stage-appropriate care. Best practice management of cervical cancer is determined not only by broad FIGO stage (I–IV) but also by FIGO 2018 sub-stages, within which prognosis and recommended management may differ substantially. This is particularly relevant for stages such as IB (IB1, IB2 and IB3), IIA (IIA1 and IIA2) and stage IV (IVA and IVB), where treatment intent and modality can vary considerably. The ability to assess treatment delivered against FIGO stage- and sub-stage–specific standards would strengthen quality monitoring and interpretation of treatment indicators. It is also worth noting that, for patients with rare cervical cancer histological subtypes, optimal management may differ from more common squamous cell or adenocarcinoma pathways.

Australia is currently developing best practice guidelines for cervical cancer treatment. This provides a future opportunity to develop and align national indicators for monitoring treatment and stratify future reporting by FIGO stage.  

Further expansion of the NGOR to achieve national coverage, integrate screening and vaccination data, and collect and report Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) is planned and awaited. Future consideration should also be given to how management and optimal care for cervical cancer patients and their families beyond the targeted therapy cancer treatment rates reported here can be measured and monitored in Australia. Greater emphasis is needed on the delivery of supportive care and proactive management of toxicity, which are critical to treatment completion, quality of life, and oncologic outcomes; as well as appropriate access to palliative care. The systematic capture of these interventions would provide a more comprehensive picture of care quality and patient experience across the treatment continuum.  Similarly, it would also greatly assist in assessing whether optimal treatment was likely provided if data on overall functional status, which is often assessed using validated performance status scales such as ECOG, could be systematically collected. Such data are commonly used to inform treatment eligibility and multidisciplinary decision-making.  Incorporating performance status alongside comorbidity data may help support a clinically meaningful assessment of the appropriateness of care. 

The comprehensive diagnosis, treatment and survival data, including data for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, published in the 2025 Queensland Cervical Cancer Quality Index is an outstanding example of what is possible. Through systematic guidance from an expert advisory group, comprehensive data curation, data linkage and individual record review as needed, Queensland has shown how existing data can be compiled and analysed to produce meaningful information. Analyses confirmed that in Queensland, as reported previously in international literature (10), older age (70+) and advanced Stage disease are associated with not receiving treatment (and also that there was no association between treatment receipt and remoteness, Indigenous status or comorbidities). (5) Queensland data also clearly show that many patients face delays in access to timely surgery and radiotherapy, particular in the public system. Concerningly time to definitive surgery has worsened over time, which may relate to increasing strain on public hospital resources since the COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast, completion of definitive chemoradiotherapy and brachytherapy within 56 days has improved over time.

1 World Health Organization. Global strategy to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem. 2020. Available at: https://www.who.int/ publications/i/item/9789240014107

2 Sandhu S, Perera S, Whitely A et al . NGOR 2023 Annual Report. Monash University, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Report No 3.

3 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cancer data in Australia [Internet]. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2025 [cited 2025 Dec. 16]. Available from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cancer/cancer-data-in-australia  

4 Queensland Government. Queensland Cancer Quality Index: Indicators of safe, quality cancer care. Cancer care in public and private hospitals 2007-2021. Queensland Health, Brisbane, 2023. 

5 Queensland Government. Queensland Cervical Cancer Quality Index:2015-2024. Queensland Health, Brisbane, 2025. Available at: https://cancerallianceqld.health.qld.gov.au/reports/Cervical2025PublicWebsite-CervicalReport2025/#tab1

6 Ramirez PT, Frumovitz M, Pareja R, Lopez A, Vieira M, Ribeiro R, et al. Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(20):1895-904.

7 Bonte AS, Luyckx A, Wyckmans L, Trinh XB, van Dam PA. Quality indicators for the management of endometrial, cervical and ovarian cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019;45(4):528-37.

8 Sandhu S, Perera S, Whitely A, Knights T, Lloyd M, Hotton J, Zalcberg J, Rome RM on behalf of the National Gynae-Oncology Registry. National Gynae-Oncology Registry 2024 Annual Report. Monash University, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Report No 4

9 National Cancer Expert Reference Group (NCERG). Optimal care pathway for women with cervical cancer 2020. Available at: https://www.cancer.org.au/assets/pdf/cervical-cancer-optimal-cancer-care-pathway  

10 Mancebo G, Miralpeix E, Solé-Sedeño JM, Tió G, Rodrigo-Calvo T, Lloveras B, Alameda F. Influence of age on treatment and prognosis of invasive cervical cancer. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021 Jul;262:68-72. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.04.040.

Information on cervical cancer survival provides an indication of cancer prognosis at the individual level and the effectiveness of treatment. Relative survival indicates the percentage of people who are still alive for a specific amount of time (typically 5 years) following a cervical cancer diagnosis, relative to the expected rate in women their age in the general population and is expressed as a percentage.

A range of factors influence survival, including characteristics of the patient (such as age, comorbidities, and functional status), the nature of the tumour (such as stage at diagnosis and histology type) and the health system (access to services, whether the cancer was screen-detected, diagnostic and treatment facilities, follow-up services) (1,2).

Overall, 5-year relative cervical cancer survival for Australia was 76.8% in 2017-2021, showing minor improvements over time, rising from 73.0% in the period 1997–2001. In the most recent period, 5-year survival was highest in the Qld (78.0%) and lowest in SA (69.9%). The NT showed the greatest improvements with 5-year survival increasing to 74.8% from 62.4% in 2012-2016 (Figure 11.1).

Overall, 5-year relative survival decreased with increasing age from 97.7% among women diagnosed when aged 20–24 years to 43.5% at 80-84 years (Figure 11.2).

Relative survival could not be calculated by Indigenous status, socioeconomic status, remoteness area, or country of birth, but observed 5-year survival rates were lowest for Indigenous women (64.3%), women living in the lowest socioeconomic quintile (66.6%) and very remote areas (60.3%). Rates were similar for Australian-born and overseas-born women, noting that these high-level groupings may obscure diversity in survival for different culturally and linguistically diverse groups (Figure 11.3).

Source: 2021 Australian Cancer Database, with additional analyses of Cancer data provided by AIHW.

Relative survival rates provide an objective measure of survival probability from cancer, controlling for differences in mortality from other causes. It is the ratio of the observed survival rate in a group of patients during a specified follow-up period to the expected survival rate in a comparable population. Calculations of expected survival rates require information on the probability of a comparable population living to or dying at a particular age (i.e., life tables). Relative survival for Australia overall and by age group was calculated using national life tables, whereas relative survival by jurisdiction was calculated using jurisdiction-specific life tables. Life tables were not available by Indigenous status, socioeconomic status, remoteness area, or country of birth and observed (crude) survival rates are presented. Relative survival rates for women under the age of 20 years were not published due to an insufficient number of cases to calculate a stable estimate of survival.

Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander identification was based on whether a person had ever self-reported their status, as recorded by six state and territory cancer registries (NSW, Vic, Qld, WA, ACT and NT) (3).

Cervical cancer survival rates in Australia are above the international benchmarks, which generally show a range in 5-year survival between 50–70% (4). Survival gains over time have been modest, likely due partly to the limited progress in treatment advancements. Recent trial findings suggest a new treatment option that could significantly improve survival and outcomes for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (5).

Crude survival data show disparities by Indigenous status, socioeconomic status and remoteness, which may be partially explained by diagnosis at a later stage (6,7,8). Nevertheless, comparisons of crude survival rates across the different sub-population groups should be interpreted with caution as they do not control for underlying chances of survival without cervical cancer.

Cancer stage is a strong predictor of survival. Data from the Cancer Alliance Queensland Cervical Cancer Quality Index (2015–2024) show a pronounced survival gradient by stage at diagnosis, demonstrating the substantial impact of disease progression on prognosis. Five-year survival was extremely high for cancers detected at the earliest stages – 100% for Stage IA and 91% for Stage IB – but declined steadily with advancing disease, falling to 71% for Stage II, 64% for Stage III, and 28% for Stage IV (9). The stage at diagnosis is not routinely available nationally and therefore could not be accounted for in this report. 

Data from the previous Pap-based screening program shows that overall cervical cancer survival is notably higher for women with an adequate screening history compared with lapsed or never screened women, and among women who have been screened, for screen-detected cancers (10). This demonstrates the greater survival benefits for women regularly participating in screening (especially when the cancer was screen-detected), which is likely due to cervical cancers detected through screening being diagnosed at an earlier stage and being slower developing cancers than cancers diagnosed in women who were under or never screened. Findings from the Queensland Cervical Cancer Quality Index further support this pattern, showing that women without prior screening records have substantially poorer survival than those who had been screened, largely because unscreened women are more often diagnosed at later, less treatable stages of disease (9). Taken together, these data reinforce that regular participation in cervical screening, and the earlier diagnosis it enables, is a key driver of improved survival outcomes.

The Indigenous status variable is not of sufficient quality for analysis of records from SA, Tasmania or the ACT. Therefore, the survival statistics presented by Indigenous status are for NSW, Vic, Qld, WA and NT combined.

The survival figures are not age-adjusted. This could affect the comparison of results between jurisdictions and/or within a jurisdiction over time if the age characteristics of people diagnosed with cervical cancer varies between jurisdiction or changes over time.

1 Diaz A, Baade PD, Valery PC, et al. Comorbidity and cervical cancer survival of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian women: A semi-national registry-based cohort study (2003-2012). PLoS One 2018; 13(5): e0196764.

2 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2021. Cancer in Australia 2021. Cancer series no. 133. Cat. no. CAN 144. Canberra: AIHW.

3 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2021. Cancer in Australia 2021. Supplementary tables for Chapter 10. Available at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/501b86ea-2d72-406e-b609-0d597cd1350b/aihw-can-144-data-tables-Ch-10-Key-Population-Groups.xlsx.aspx. 

4 Allemani C, Matsuda T, Di Carlo V, et al. Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000-14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries. Lancet. 2018; 391(10125): 1023-75.

5 Mirza, MR, Chase, DM, Slomovitz BM, et al. Pembrolizumab or placebo with chemoradiotherapy followed by pembrolizumab or placebo for newly diagnosed, high-risk, locally advanced cervical cancer (ENGOT-cx11/GOG-3047/KEYNOTE-A18): A randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. The Lancet, 403 (10388), 1305-1314.

6 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2019. Cervical screening in Australia 2019. Cancer series no. 123. Cat. no. CAN 124. Canberra: AIHW. 

7 Diaz A, Moore SP, Martin JH, et al. Factors associated with cancer-specific and overall survival among Indigenous and non-Indigenous gynecologic cancer patients in Queensland, Australia: a matched cohort study. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 2015; 25(3): 542-7.

8 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2018. Analysis of cancer outcomes and screening behaviour for national cancer screening programs in Australia. Cancer series no. 111. Cat. no. CAN 115. Canberra: AIHW.

9 Queensland Government. Queensland Cervical Cancer Quality Index:2015-2024. Queensland Health, Brisbane, 2025. Available at: https://cancerallianceqld.health.qld.gov.au/reports/Cervical2025PublicWebsite-CervicalReport2025/#tab1

10 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2019. Analysis of cervical cancer and abnormality outcomes in an era of cervical screening and HPV vaccination in Australia. Cancer series no. 126. Cat. no. CAN 129. Canberra: AIHW.