Background The knowledge that persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the main cause of cervical cancer has resulted in the development of prophylactic vaccines to prevent HPV infection and HPV assays that detect nucleic acids of the virus. WHO has launched a Global Initiative to scale up preventive, screening, and treatment interventions to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem during the 21st century. Therefore, our study aimed to assess the existing burden of cervical cancer as a baseline from which to assess the effect of this initiative.Methods For this worldwide analysis, we used data of cancer estimates from 185 countries from the Global Cancer Observatory 2018 database. We used a hierarchy of methods dependent on the availability and quality of the source information from population-based cancer registries to estimate incidence of cervical cancer. For estimation of cervical cancer mortality, we used the WHO mortality database. Countries were grouped in 21 subcontinents and were also categorised as high-resource or lower-resource countries, on the basis of their Human Development Index. We calculated the number of cervical cancer cases and deaths in a given country, directly age-standardised incidence and mortality rate of cervical cancer, indirectly standardised incidence ratio and mortality ratio, cumulative incidence and mortality rate, and average age at diagnosis. Findings Approximately 570 000 cases of cervical cancer and 311 000 deaths from the disease occurred in 2018. Cervical cancer was the fourth most common cancer in women, ranking after breast cancer (2•1 million cases), colorectal cancer (0•8 million) and lung cancer (0•7 million). The estimated age-standardised incidence of cervical cancer was 13•1 per 100 000 women globally and varied widely among countries, with rates ranging from less than 2 to 75 per 100 000 women. Cervical cancer was the leading cause of cancer-related death in women in eastern, western, middle, and southern Africa. The highest incidence was estimated in Eswatini, with approximately 6•5% of women developing cervical cancer before age 75 years. China and India together contributed more than a third of the global cervical burden, with 106 000 cases in China and 97 000 cases in India, and 48 000 deaths in China and 60 000 deaths in India. Globally, the average age at diagnosis of cervical cancer was 53 years, ranging from 44 years (Vanuatu) to 68 years (Singapore). The global average age at death from cervical cancer was 59 years, ranging from 45 years (Vanuatu) to 76 years (Martinique). Cervical cancer ranked in the top three cancers affecting women younger than 45 years in 146 (79%) of 185 countries assessed.Interpretation Cervical cancer continues to be a major public health problem affecting middle-aged women, particularly in less-resourced countries. The global scale-up of HPV vaccination and HPV-based screening-including self-sampling-has potential to make cervical cancer a rare disease in the decades to come. Our study could help shape and ...

No abstract

BackgroundMeta-analyses have become an essential tool in synthesizing evidence on clinical and epidemiological questions derived from a multitude of similar studies assessing the particular issue. Appropriate and accessible statistical software is needed to produce the summary statistic of interest.MethodsMetaprop is a statistical program implemented to perform meta-analyses of proportions in Stata. It builds further on the existing Stata procedure metan which is typically used to pool effects (risk ratios, odds ratios, differences of risks or means) but which is also used to pool proportions. Metaprop implements procedures which are specific to binomial data and allows computation of exact binomial and score test-based confidence intervals. It provides appropriate methods for dealing with proportions close to or at the margins where the normal approximation procedures often break down, by use of the binomial distribution to model the within-study variability or by allowing Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation to stabilize the variances. Metaprop was applied on two published meta-analyses: 1) prevalence of HPV-infection in women with a Pap smear showing ASC-US; 2) cure rate after treatment for cervical precancer using cold coagulation.ResultsThe first meta-analysis showed a pooled HPV-prevalence of 43% (95% CI: 38%-48%). In the second meta-analysis, the pooled percentage of cured women was 94% (95% CI: 86%-97%).ConclusionBy using metaprop, no studies with 0% or 100% proportions were excluded from the meta-analysis. Furthermore, study specific and pooled confidence intervals always were within admissible values, contrary to the original publication, where metan was used.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/2049-3258-72-39) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

In spite of effective screening methods, cervical cancer continues to be a major public health problem. New methodologies of cervical cancer prevention should be made available and accessible for women of all countries through well-organised programmes.

No abstract

Given the strong etiologic link between high-risk HPV infection and cervical cancer high-risk HPV testing is now being considered as an alternative for cytology-based cervical cancer screening. Many test systems have been developed that can detect the broad spectrum of hrHPV types in one assay. However, for screening purposes the detection of high-risk HPV is not inherently useful unless it is informative for the presence of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 2/3) or cancer. Candidate high-risk HPV tests to be used for screening should reach an optimal balance between clinical sensitivity and specificity for detection of high-grade CIN and cervical cancer to minimize redundant or excessive follow-up procedures for high-risk HPV positive women without cervical lesions. Data from various large screening studies have shown that high-risk HPV testing by hybrid capture 2 and GP5+/6+-PCR yields considerably better results in the detection of CIN 2/3 than cytology. The data from these studies can be used to guide the translation of high-risk HPV testing into clinical practice by setting standards of test performance and characteristics. On the basis of these data we have developed guidelines for highrisk HPV test requirements for primary cervical screening and validation guidelines for candidate HPV assays. ' 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.Key words: HPV-DNA testing; cervical screening; HPV test guidelines; HPV test requirements; HPV test statistics It is now well-established and widely, if not universally, accepted that virtually all cervical cancer and its immediate precancerous lesions arise from persisting cervical infections by $15 cancer-associated (high-risk or hr) human papillomavirus (hrHPV) genotypes.1,2 The most important of these HPV genotypes are HPV16 and HPV18, which account for $70% of all invasive cervical cancers with minor variations in this percentage between continents.3 A new paradigm of cervical carcinogenesis replaces an older model of stepwise progression from low-grade to highgrade morphological changes and can now be summarized as four reliably measured stages: (i) HPV acquisition, (ii) HPV persistence (vs. clearance), (iii) progression of a persisting infection to cervical precancer (with incidental co-occurrence of both conditions) and (iv) invasion. 4,5 On the basis of this nearly absolute etiologic link between carcinogenic HPV and cervical cancer, testing for hrHPV is now being considered as an alternative for cytology-based cervical cancer screening. However, before cost-effective implementation of population-based hrHPV testing in cervical cancer screening and prevention can be envisaged, any candidate HPV testing technologies must offer an optimal balance between clinical sensitivity and specificity for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 and treatable cancer (!CIN 2) to minimize redundant or excessive follow-up procedures. Reliable clinical performance needs to be established before any candidate screening test is widely disseminated and adopted into cl...

ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) assays on self samples and the efficacy of self sampling strategies to reach underscreened women.DesignUpdated meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline (PubMed), Embase, and CENTRAL from 1 January 2013 to 15 April 2018 (accuracy review), and 1 January 2014 to 15 April 2018 (participation review).Review methodsAccuracy review: hrHPV assay on a vaginal self sample and a clinician sample; and verification of the presence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) by colposcopy and biopsy in all enrolled women or in women with positive tests. Participation review: study population included women who were irregularly or never screened; women in the self sampling arm (intervention arm) were invited to collect a self sample for hrHPV testing; women in the control arm were invited or reminded to undergo a screening test on a clinician sample; participation in both arms was documented; and a population minimum of 400 women.Results56 accuracy studies and 25 participation trials were included. hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction were as sensitive on self samples as on clinician samples to detect CIN2+ or CIN3+ (pooled ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.02). However, hrHPV assays based on signal amplification were less sensitive on self samples (pooled ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.89). The specificity to exclude CIN2+ was 2% or 4% lower on self samples than on clinician samples, for hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction or signal amplification, respectively. Mailing self sample kits to the woman’s home address generated higher response rates to have a sample taken by a clinician than invitation or reminder letters (pooled relative participation in intention-to-treat-analysis of 2.33, 95% confidence interval 1.86 to 2.91). Opt-in strategies where women had to request a self sampling kit were generally not more effective than invitation letters (relative participation of 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.61). Direct offer of self sampling devices to women in communities that were underscreened generated high participation rates (>75%). Substantial interstudy heterogeneity was noted (I2>95%).ConclusionsWhen used with hrHPV assays based on polymerase chain reaction, testing on self samples was similarly accurate as on clinician samples. Offering self sampling kits generally is more effective in reaching underscreened women than sending invitations. However, since response rates are highly variable among settings, pilots should be set up before regional or national roll out of self sampling strategies.