Erika Hurtado-Salgado1, Eduardo Ortiz-Panozo1, Jorge Salmerón2, Rufino Luna-Gordillo3, Betania Allen-Leigh4, Nenetzen Saavedra-Lara5, Eduardo L Franco6, Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce7. 1. Center for Population Health Research, National Institute of Public Health, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico. 2. Political, Population and Health Research Center, School of Medicine, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico. 3. National Perinatology Institute, Health Secretariat, Mexico City, Mexico. 4. Reproductive Health Division, Center for Population Health Research, National Institute of Public Health, Mexico City, Mexico. 5. School of Public Health of Mexico, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico. 6. Division of Cancer Epidemiology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. 7. National Institute of Public Health, Av. Universidad 655, Col. Santa María Ahuacatitlán, 62100, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico. elazcano@insp.mx.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prevalence of cervical high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) infection varies greatly. Data on distribution of hrHPV infection constitute important evidence for decision-making when implementing HPV testing into cervical cancer screening programs. We estimate the prevalence of cervical hrHPV infection in a large sample of women in a middle-income country and explore variation by age, community marginalization and region in women using public cervical cancer screening services. METHODS: Records covering 2010-2017 from a registry of hrHPV test results (Hybrid Capture 2 and polymerase chain reaction) in 2,737,022 women 35-64 years were analyzed. In this observational study, 32 states were categorized into five geographical regions and classified by degree of marginalization. We stratified by test type and estimated crude and adjusted prevalence and rate ratios and used Poisson models and joinpoint regression analysis. RESULTS: Prevalence was higher in women 35-39 years, at 10.4% (95% CI 10.3-10.5) and women 60-64 years, at 10.1% (95% CI 10.0-10.3). Prevalence was higher in the southeast, at 10.5% (95% CI 10.4-10.6). Women living in less marginalized areas had a significantly higher prevalence, at 10.3% (95% CI 10.2-10.4) compared to those in highly marginalized areas, at 8.7% (95% CI 8.5-8.7). HPV16 infection was detected in 0.92% (2,293/23,854) of women and HPV18 infection was detected in 0.39% (978/23,854) of women. CONCLUSION: Understanding the distribution of HPV prevalence has value as evidence for developing policy in order to improve cervical cancer screening strategies. These results will constitute evidence to allow decision makers to better choose where to focus those resources that they do have.
PURPOSE: Prevalence of cervical high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) infection varies greatly. Data on distribution of hrHPV infection constitute important evidence for decision-making when implementing HPV testing into cervical cancer screening programs. We estimate the prevalence of cervical hrHPV infection in a large sample of women in a middle-income country and explore variation by age, community marginalization and region in women using public cervical cancer screening services. METHODS: Records covering 2010-2017 from a registry of hrHPV test results (Hybrid Capture 2 and polymerase chain reaction) in 2,737,022 women 35-64 years were analyzed. In this observational study, 32 states were categorized into five geographical regions and classified by degree of marginalization. We stratified by test type and estimated crude and adjusted prevalence and rate ratios and used Poisson models and joinpoint regression analysis. RESULTS: Prevalence was higher in women 35-39 years, at 10.4% (95% CI 10.3-10.5) and women 60-64 years, at 10.1% (95% CI 10.0-10.3). Prevalence was higher in the southeast, at 10.5% (95% CI 10.4-10.6). Women living in less marginalized areas had a significantly higher prevalence, at 10.3% (95% CI 10.2-10.4) compared to those in highly marginalized areas, at 8.7% (95% CI 8.5-8.7). HPV16 infection was detected in 0.92% (2,293/23,854) of women and HPV18 infection was detected in 0.39% (978/23,854) of women. CONCLUSION: Understanding the distribution of HPV prevalence has value as evidence for developing policy in order to improve cervical cancer screening strategies. These results will constitute evidence to allow decision makers to better choose where to focus those resources that they do have.
Authors: Helen Trottier; Silvaneide Ferreira; Patricia Thomann; Maria C Costa; Joao S Sobrinho; José Carlos M Prado; Thomas E Rohan; Luisa L Villa; Eduardo L Franco Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2010-10-26 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Patti E Gravitt; Anne F Rositch; Michelle I Silver; Morgan A Marks; Kathryn Chang; Anne E Burke; Raphael P Viscidi Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Monisha Sharma; Laia Bruni; Mireia Diaz; Xavier Castellsagué; Silvia de Sanjosé; F Xavier Bosch; Jane J Kim Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Jorge Salmerón; Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce; Attila Lorincz; Mauricio Hernández; Pilar Hernández; Ahideé Leyva; Mario Uribe; Horacio Manzanares; Alfredo Antunez; Enrique Carmona; Brigitte M Ronnett; Mark E Sherman; David Bishai; Daron Ferris; Yvonne Flores; Elsa Yunes; Keerti V Shah Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 2.506