Examining the association between socioeconomic status and potential human papillomavirus-associated cancers

Benard, Vicki B.; Johnson, Christopher; Thompson, Trevor; Roland, Katherine B.; Lai, Sue Min; Cokkinides, Vilma; Tangka, Florence; Hawkins, Nikki A.; Lawson, Herschel W.; Weir, Hannah K.

doi:10.1002/cncr.23742

Cited by 186 publications

(143 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

120

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…9,21,23 Socioeconomic status variables such as poverty and education have also been shown to be associated with increased risk of cervical cancer. 24 Immunosuppression, which may occur as a result of HIV infection or appear among transplant recipients, is a risk factor for HPV infection and there is consistent evidence that HIV-positive women have higher prevalence of HPV infection and increased risk of cervical cancer. 25,26 It is possible that the higher parity, higher STI rates, higher immunosuppression due to diabetes or HIV, and higher smoking rates among Indigenous Australian women compared with non-Indigenous Australian women 27-29 may contribute to their disproportionately higher cervical cancer incidence.…”

Section: Other Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cancers attributable to human papillomavirus infection

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Although the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was introduced primarily as a cervical cancer prevention vaccine, HPV has a causal role in several types of cancer. This article reviews the epidemiological evidence for the role of HPV in human cancer, and describes Australian trends in these cancers. HPV is a necessary cause of cervical cancer. The currently vaccine-preventable subtypes of HPV 16 and 18 are responsible for~70% of cervical cancer. The introduction of an organised Pap smear program in Australia led to a steep decline in incidence over the past decades. HPV can be detected in~40% and 70% of vulval and vaginal cancers respectively. Rates of these cancers have been stable over the past 20 years. The prevalence of HPV in penile cancer is~50% and incidence has not recently changed. For anal cancer,~85% of cases are HPV positive, and incidence has increased significantly in both men and women over the past 20 years. In the oral cavity,~35% of oropharyngeal cancers and~25% of other oral cavity cancers are HPV positive. The incidence of HPV-related oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers is increasing, whereas incidence at HPV-unrelated sites is decreasing. Overall, 1154 HPV-related cancer cases were potentially preventable by vaccination. If HPV-related cancers at non-cervical sites are prevented by vaccination, then a similar number of cancer cases will be prevented as in the cervix. However, almost one-quarter of the potentially preventable cancer cases are in men, who are not included in the current national immunisation program.

show abstract

Section: Other Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cancers attributable to human papillomavirus infection

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…37 In addition, low SES varies by race/ethnicity and is associated with increased rates of cervical cancer, most likely because of reduced access to care. 38,39 Thus, variations in cofactors by race/ethnicity may be responsible in part for variations in incidence rates of cervical carcinoma, 40 although this information is not available in the cancer registry system.…”

Section: -25mentioning

confidence: 99%

Burden of cervical cancer in the United States, 1998-2003

Watson

Saraiya

Benard

et al. 2008

Cancer

Self Cite

239

175

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Benard et al in this Supplement report evidence that individuals of lower SES have a higher incidence of HPVassociated cancers, with the exception of anal and oral cavity/oropharyngeal cancers. 41 Similarly, our analysis did not incorporate information on racespecific earnings, so that actual productivity losses may be overestimated for racial groups with belowaverage earnings and underestimated for racial groups with above-average earnings. Second, the human capital approach has several limitations.…”

Section: Mortality-related Productivity Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%