Nicolas Wentzensen1. 1. National Cancer Institute Bethesda, MD 20892-9774.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Persistent infections with human papillomaviruses are a necessary cause of cervical carcinomas. The development of HPV-based prevention tools, HPV vaccination and HPV testing, is leading to major changes in cervical cancer prevention programs worldwide. A decade after introduction of HPV vaccination in many countries reductions of HPV infections and cancer precursors have been observed in young women. The focus is now on the integration of new approaches for screening of increasingly vaccinated populations. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: A successful cervical cancer prevention program includes primary screening, triage of screen-positives, and colposcopy-biopsy to identify women with cancer precursors who require treatment. The role of primary screening is to identify a small subset of women with increased risk of cervical precancer, while the majority of women can be reassured that their risk is very low. Depending on the primary screening test, additional triage testing is required to decide who should be referred to colposcopy. Currently, there are three major approaches to cervical cancer screening: Cervical cytology, HPV testing, and HPV-cytology co-testing. Several triage tests for HPV-positive women are currently being evaluated, including cytology, HPV genotyping, p16/Ki-67 cytology and various methylation tests. Due to the increasing number of options for cervical cancer screening, it is challenging to keep screening guidelines current and comprehensible. The increasing complexity can lead to confusion among providers and women who participate in screening programs about the best approaches. Precision prevention is a novel approach to cervical cancer screening that integrates individual medical history with test results for unified, risk-based management decisions.
BACKGROUND: Persistent infections with human papillomaviruses are a necessary cause of cervical carcinomas. The development of HPV-based prevention tools, HPV vaccination and HPV testing, is leading to major changes in cervical cancer prevention programs worldwide. A decade after introduction of HPV vaccination in many countries reductions of HPV infections and cancer precursors have been observed in young women. The focus is now on the integration of new approaches for screening of increasingly vaccinated populations. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: A successful cervical cancer prevention program includes primary screening, triage of screen-positives, and colposcopy-biopsy to identify women with cancer precursors who require treatment. The role of primary screening is to identify a small subset of women with increased risk of cervical precancer, while the majority of women can be reassured that their risk is very low. Depending on the primary screening test, additional triage testing is required to decide who should be referred to colposcopy. Currently, there are three major approaches to cervical cancer screening: Cervical cytology, HPV testing, and HPV-cytology co-testing. Several triage tests for HPV-positive women are currently being evaluated, including cytology, HPV genotyping, p16/Ki-67 cytology and various methylation tests. Due to the increasing number of options for cervical cancer screening, it is challenging to keep screening guidelines current and comprehensible. The increasing complexity can lead to confusion among providers and women who participate in screening programs about the best approaches. Precision prevention is a novel approach to cervical cancer screening that integrates individual medical history with test results for unified, risk-based management decisions.
Authors: Jacob Bornstein; Mario Sideri; Silvio Tatti; Patrick Walker; Walter Prendiville; Hope K Haefner Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Warner K Huh; Kevin A Ault; David Chelmow; Diane D Davey; Robert A Goulart; Francisco A R Garcia; Walter K Kinney; L Stewart Massad; Edward J Mayeaux; Debbie Saslow; Mark Schiffman; Nicolas Wentzensen; Herschel W Lawson; Mark H Einstein Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Margaret R E McCredie; Katrina J Sharples; Charlotte Paul; Judith Baranyai; Gabriele Medley; Ronald W Jones; David C G Skegg Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-04-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Allan Hildesheim; Rolando Herrero; Sholom Wacholder; Ana C Rodriguez; Diane Solomon; M Concepcion Bratti; John T Schiller; Paula Gonzalez; Gary Dubin; Carolina Porras; Silvia E Jimenez; Douglas R Lowy Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-08-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Nataša Vasiljević; Dorota Scibior-Bentkowska; Adam R Brentnall; Jack Cuzick; Attila T Lorincz Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-02-06 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Linda Ho; George Terry; Michelle Kleeman; Michael Giddings; Janet Austin; Louise Cadman; Lesley Ashdown-Barr; Maria J Costa; Anne Szarewski Journal: J Clin Virol Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 3.168