Jenell S Coleman1, Michelle S Cespedes, Susan Cu-Uvin, Rose J Kosgei, May Maloba, Jean Anderson, Timothy Wilkin, Antoine Jaquet, Julia Bohlius, Kathryn Anastos, Kara Wools-Kaloustian. 1. 1Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; 2Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; 3The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI; 4Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Nairobi; 5Kenya Medical Research Institute FACES, Nairobi, Kenya; 6 Division of Infectious Diseases, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY; 7Université Bordeaux and 8INSERM, ISPED, Centre INSERM U897-Epidémiologie-Bio statistique, Bordeaux, France; 9Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; 10Department of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY; and 11Division of Infectious Diseases, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Approximately 85% of cervical cancer cases and deaths occur in resource-constrained countries where best practices for prevention, particularly for women with HIV infection, still need to be developed. The aim of this study was to assess cervical cancer prevention capacity in select HIV clinics located in resource-constrained countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of sub-Saharan African sites of 4 National Institutes of Health-funded HIV/AIDS networks was conducted. Sites were surveyed on the availability of cervical cancer screening and treatment among women with HIV infection and without HIV infection. Descriptive statistics and χ or Fisher exact test were used as appropriate. RESULTS: Fifty-one (65%) of 78 sites responded. Access to cervical cancer screening was reported by 49 sites (96%). Of these sites, 39 (80%) performed screening on-site. Central African sites were less likely to have screening on-site (p = .02) versus other areas. Visual inspection with acetic acid and Pap testing were the most commonly available on-site screening methods at 31 (79%) and 26 (67%) sites, respectively. High-risk HPV testing was available at 29% of sites with visual inspection with acetic acid and 50% of sites with Pap testing. Cryotherapy and radical hysterectomy were the most commonly available on-site treatment methods for premalignant and malignant lesions at 29 (74%) and 18 (46%) sites, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite limited resources, most sites surveyed had the capacity to perform cervical cancer screening and treatment. The existing infrastructure of HIV clinical and research sites may provide the ideal framework for scale-up of cervical cancer prevention in resource-constrained countries with a high burden of cervical dysplasia.
OBJECTIVE: Approximately 85% of cervical cancer cases and deaths occur in resource-constrained countries where best practices for prevention, particularly for women with HIV infection, still need to be developed. The aim of this study was to assess cervical cancer prevention capacity in select HIV clinics located in resource-constrained countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of sub-Saharan African sites of 4 National Institutes of Health-funded HIV/AIDS networks was conducted. Sites were surveyed on the availability of cervical cancer screening and treatment among women with HIV infection and without HIV infection. Descriptive statistics and χ or Fisher exact test were used as appropriate. RESULTS: Fifty-one (65%) of 78 sites responded. Access to cervical cancer screening was reported by 49 sites (96%). Of these sites, 39 (80%) performed screening on-site. Central African sites were less likely to have screening on-site (p = .02) versus other areas. Visual inspection with acetic acid and Pap testing were the most commonly available on-site screening methods at 31 (79%) and 26 (67%) sites, respectively. High-risk HPV testing was available at 29% of sites with visual inspection with acetic acid and 50% of sites with Pap testing. Cryotherapy and radical hysterectomy were the most commonly available on-site treatment methods for premalignant and malignant lesions at 29 (74%) and 18 (46%) sites, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite limited resources, most sites surveyed had the capacity to perform cervical cancer screening and treatment. The existing infrastructure of HIV clinical and research sites may provide the ideal framework for scale-up of cervical cancer prevention in resource-constrained countries with a high burden of cervical dysplasia.
Authors: L O Sarian; S F Derchain; P Naud; C Roteli-Martins; A Longatto-Filho; S Tatti; M Branca; M Erzen; L Serpa-Hammes; J Matos; R Gontijo; J F Bragança; T P Lima; M Y S Maeda; A Lörincz; G B Dores; S Costa; S Syrjänen; K Syrjänen Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2005 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Freddy Sitas; D Max Parkin; Mike Chirenje; Lara Stein; Raymond Abratt; Henry Wabinga Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: H De Vuyst; P Claeys; S Njiru; L Muchiri; S Steyaert; P De Sutter; E Van Marck; J Bwayo; M Temmerman Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: C Uberti-Foppa; M Origoni; M Maillard; D Ferrari; D Ciuffreda; E Mastrorilli; A Lazzarin; F Lillo Journal: J Med Virol Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 2.327
Authors: Cynthia Firnhaber; Khumbuzile Zungu; Simon Levin; Pam Michelow; Luis J Montaner; Patrick McPhail; Anna-Lise Williamson; Bruce R Allan; Charlie Van der Horst; Allen Rinas; Ian Sanne Journal: Acta Cytol Date: 2009 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.319
Authors: Elkanah Omenge Orang'o; Tao Liu; Astrid Christoffersen-Deb; Peter Itsura; John Oguda; Sierra Washington; David Chumba; Latha Pisharodi; Susan Cu-Uvin; Anne F Rositch Journal: AIDS Date: 2017-01-14 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Nicole G Campos; Vivien Tsu; Jose Jeronimo; Mercy Mvundura; Kyueun Lee; Jane J Kim Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Emma R Allanson; Aime Powell; Max Bulsara; Hong Lim Lee; Lynette Denny; Yee Leung; Paul Cohen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: A Lidofsky; A Miller; J Jorgensen; A Tajik; K Tendeu; D Pius; E Mallange; A Dougherty Journal: Ann Glob Health Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 2.462