| Literature DB >> 28240509 |
Sasidharanpillai Sabeena1, Parvati V Bhat, Veena Kamath, Shashikala K Bhat, Sreekumaran Nair, Ravishankar n, Kiran Chandrabharani, Govindakarnavar Arunkumar.
Abstract
Introduction: Cervical cancer probably represents the best-studied human cancer caused by a viral infection and the causal association of this preventable cancer with human papilloma virus (HPV) is well established. Worldwide there is a scarcity of data regarding HPV prevalence with vast differences existing among populations. Objective: The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the community-based HPV prevalence estimates among asymptomatic women from urban and rural set ups and in participants of cancer screening clinics. Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Entities:
Keywords: Cancer screening; cervical cancer; community; Human Papilloma Virus; HPV; prevalence
Year: 2017 PMID: 28240509 PMCID: PMC5563091 DOI: 10.22034/APJCP.2017.18.1.145
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian Pac J Cancer Prev ISSN: 1513-7368
Figure 1PRISMA Chart Detailing Study Selection for the Review
Figure 2The Forest Plot of Pooled HPV Prevalence among Urban Women
Characteristics of the Studies Included in the Review
| Study area | study setting | number | References | Samples | HPV testing | HPV | Age (years) | Quality assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mexico | Urban | 1,340 | Lazcano-Ponce 2001 | Cervical sample | PCR | 14.50% | 20-70 | Good |
| United States | Urban | 2,026 | Dunne et al 2007 | Self-collected vaginal sample | PCR | 26.80% | 14-59 | Good |
| Beijing, China | Urban | 5,552 | Zhao et al 2009 | Cervical sample | PCR | 6.70% | 25-54 | Good |
| Nepal | Urban | 979 | Sherpa et al 2010 | Cervical sample | PCR | 8.60% | 15-59 | Good |
| Karachi, Pakistan | Urban | 899 | Raza et al 2010 | Cervical sample | PCR | 2.80% | 15-59 | Good |
| Hong Kong | Urban | 1,570 | Liu et al 2011 | Cervical sample | PCR | 6.20% | 20-65 | Good |
| Guangzhou | 1,369 | 10% | ||||||
| 2Cities, Vietnam HCM Hanoi | Urban | 1,500 | Vu et al 2011 | Cervical sample | PCR | HCM-8.3% Hanoi 6.10% | 15-69 | Good |
| Tehran, Iran | Urban | 825 | Khodakarami et al 2011 | Cervical sample | PCR | 7.80% | 18-59 | Good |
| Southern Iran | Urban | 779 | Eghbali et al 2012 | Cervical sample | PCR | 0.60% | 21-50 | Good |
| Shanghai | Urban | 10,000 | Zhang et al 2013 | Cervical sample | PCR | 12.60% | 17-89 | Good |
| Minnesota | Urban | 123 | Nelson et al 2014 | Self-collected vaginal sample | PCR | 17.80% | 21-30 | Good |
| Guangdong Province, China | Urban | 78,335 | Jing et al 2014 | Cervical sample | PCR | 7.30% | 18-75 | Good |
| Urban area, Bangladesh | Urban | 997 | Nahar et al 2014 | Cervical sample | PCR | 7.90% | 13-64 | Good |
| Miyazaki city | Urban | 1,118 | Imai et al 2015 | Self-collected vaginal samples | HC II | 16.20% | mean age 20 years | Fair |
| India | Urban | 3,866 | Cherian et al 2000 | Cervical sample | PCR | 6.10% | 15-65 | Good |
| Thailand | Cancer screening centre | 1,741 | Sukvirach et al 2003 | Cervical sample | PCR | 6.30% | 15-65 | Good |
| Manchester | Cancer screening centre | 24,470 | Sargent et al 2008 | Cervical sample | HC II | 14.60% | 20-64 | Good |
| Finland | Cancer screening centre | 16,895 | Leinonen et al 2008 | Cervical sample | HC II | 7.50% | 25-65 | Good |
| Indonesia | Cancer screening centre | 2,686 | Vet et al2008 | Cervical sample | PCR | 11.40% | 15-70 | Good |
| Bushehr city Iran | Cancer screening centre | 200 | Zandi et al 2007 | Cervical sample | PCR | 5.50% | 20-45 | Good |
| Kuwait | Cancer screening centre | 3,011 | Al-Awadhi et al 2011 | Cervical sample | PCR | 2.40% | 18-81 | Good |
| Spain (CLEOPATRE study) | Cancer screening centre | 3,261 | Castellague et al 2012 | Cervical sample | HCII | 14.30% | 18-65 | Good |
| Mexico | Cancer screening centre | 929 | Rivera et al 2012 | Cervical sample | PCR | 9.10% | 18-76 | Good |
| Abuja Nigeria | Cancer screening centre | 275 | Anthony et al 2014 | Cervical sample | PCR | 37% | mean age 38 years | Good |
| Italy (NTCC trial) 9 areas | Cancer screening centre | 46,900 | Baussano et al 2013 | Cervical sample | HC II | 5.7-10.3% | 25-60 | Good |
| Thailand | Cancer screening centre | 5,906 | Kantathavorn 2015 | Cervical sample | PCR | 15.10% | 20-70 years | Good |
| Fiji | Rural | 1,224 | Foliaki et al 2014 | Cervical sample | PCR | 24% | 16-63 | Fair |
| Bangladesh (rural) | Rural | 997 | Nahar et al 2014 | Cervical sample | PCR | 7.50% | 13-64 | Good |
| Chile | Rural | 1,021 | Castro et al 2014 | Cervical sample | PCR | 6.70% | 15-85 | Good |
| Dindigul | Rural | 1,891 | Franceschi et al 2005 | Cervical sample | PCR | 16.90% | 16-59 | Good |
| Tamil nadu | Rural | 1,699 | Suresh kumar et al 2015 | Urine sample | PCR | 10.50% | 20-70 | Good |
| Udupi Karnataka | Rural | 1305 | Sabeena et al 2016 | Urine sample | PCR | 0.40% | 18-65 | Good |
Figure 3The Forest Plot of HPV Prevalence among Women Attending Cancer Screening Centres
Figure 4The Forest Plot of Pooled HPV Prevalence among Rural Women