Advertisement

Cervical Cancer Screening in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

  • Diama Bhadra ValeEmail author
  • Joana Froes Bragança
  • Luiz Carlos Zeferino
Chapter

Abstract

Population-based screening programs have reduced significantly cervical cancer burden in high-income countries over the past few decades. Low- and middle-income countries have failed to show a major impact on cervical cancer control, even in settings where cytology- or visual inspection-based screening activities are ongoing. Widespread use of HPV vaccine is the most promising strategy to avoid disease development. Nevertheless, a vaccine population-based approach is still limited to some settings, and the impact of mass vaccination is not expected for some time. In 2016 the American Society of Clinical Oncology issued a stratified guideline addressing global resources disparities. The goal of this chapter is to debate challenges from low- and middle-income countries to implement successful cervical cancer screening programs in order to reduce cancer burden. The feasibility for introduction of new technologies, like the HPV-DNA-based tests, will be analyzed according to the different scenarios. This intends to be a critical review addressing aspects of organization of screening programs in the view of global disparities.

Keywords

Cervical cancer HPV vaccine Cervical cancer screening HPV-DNA tests Cervical cancer prevention Cervical cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries 

References

  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray, F. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2016 Dec 9]. http://globocan.iarc.fr/Default.aspx
  2. 2.
    Bray F, Jemal A, Grey N, Ferlay J, Forman D. Global cancer transitions according to the Human Development Index (2008–2030): a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(8):790–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Forouzanfar MH, Foreman KJ, Delossantos AM, Lozano R, Lopez AD, Murray CJL, et al. Breast and cervical cancer in 187 countries between 1980 and 2010: a systematic analysis. Lancet Lond Engl. 2011;378(9801):1461–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    World Bank. How does the World Bank classify countries? – World Bank Data Help Desk [Internet]. [cited 2017 Jun 24]. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/378834-how-does-the-world-bank-classify-countries
  5. 5.
    American Society of Clinical Oncology. New cervical cancer guideline addresses global resource disparities [Internet]. ASCO. 2016 [cited 2017 Jun 24]. https://www.asco.org/about-asco/press-center/news-releases/new-cervical-cancer-guideline-addresses-global-resource
  6. 6.
    United Nations. Sustainable development goals: 17 goals to transform our world [Internet]. United Nations Sustainable Development. [cited 2017 Jun 24]. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/
  7. 7.
    Arbyn M, Raifu AO, Weiderpass E, Bray F, Anttila A. Trends of cervical cancer mortality in the member states of the European Union. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(15):2640–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lăără E, Day NE, Hakama M. Trends in mortality from cervical cancer in the Nordic countries: association with organised screening programmes. Lancet. 1987;1(8544):1247–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peto J, Gilham C, Fletcher O, Matthews FE. The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK. Lancet. 2004;364(9430):249–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murillo R, Almonte M, Pereira A, Ferrer E, Gamboa OA, Jerónimo J, et al. Cervical cancer screening programs in Latin America and the Caribbean. Vaccine. 2008;26:L37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ponti A, et al. Cancer screening in the European Union: second report on implementation [Internet]. [cited 2017 Apr 24]. https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/major_chronic_diseases/docs/2017_cancerscreening_2ndreportimplementation_en.pdf
  12. 12.
    Walsh B, Silles M, O’Neill C. The importance of socio-economic variables in cancer screening participation: a comparison between population-based and opportunistic screening in the EU-15. Health Policy Amst Neth. 2011;101(3):269–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Adab P, McGhee SM, Yanova J, Wong CM, Hedley AJ. Effectiveness and efficiency of opportunistic cervical cancer screening: comparison with organized screening. Med Care. 2004;42(6):600–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    do Vale DBAP, Morais SS, Pimenta AL, Zeferino LC. Assessment of the cervical cancer screening in the Family Health Strategy in Amparo, São Paulo State, Brazil. Cad Saude Publica. 2010;26(2):383–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Palència L, Espelt A, Rodríguez-Sanz M, Puigpinós R, Pons-Vigués M, Pasarín MI, et al. Socio-economic inequalities in breast and cervical cancer screening practices in Europe: influence of the type of screening program. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(3):757–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miller AB, Nazeer S, Fonn S, Brandup-Lukanow A, Rehman R, Cronje H, et al. Report on consensus conference on cervical cancer screening and management. Int J Cancer. 2000;86(3):440–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sankaranarayanan R, Gaffikin L, Jacob M, Sellors J, Robles S. A critical assessment of screening methods for cervical neoplasia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet Off Organ Int Fed Gynaecol Obstet. 2005;89(Suppl 2):S4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC handbooks of cancer prevention: cervix cancer screening. Vol. 10. IARC; 2005.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rozemeijer K, Naber SK, Penning C, Overbeek LIH, Looman CWN, de Kok IMCM, et al. Cervical cancer incidence after normal cytological sample in routine screening using SurePath, ThinPrep, and conventional cytology: population based study. BMJ. 2017;356:j504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rozemeijer K, Penning C, Siebers AG, Naber SK, Matthijsse SM, van Ballegooijen M, et al. Comparing SurePath, ThinPrep, and conventional cytology as primary test method: SurePath is associated with increased CIN II+ detection rates. Cancer Causes Control. 2016;27(1):15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sankaranarayanan R, Nessa A, Esmy PO, Dangou J-M. Visual inspection methods for cervical cancer prevention. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;26(2):221–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    WHO. Guidelines for screening and treatment of precancerous lesions for cervical cancer prevention [Internet]. WHO. [cited 2015 Aug 11]. http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/cancers/screening_and_treatment_of_precancerous_lesions/en/
  23. 23.
    Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F, Confortini M, Dalla Palma P, Del Mistro A, et al. Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(3):249–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rijkaart DC, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L, van Kemenade FJ, Bulkmans NWJ, Heideman DAM, et al. Human papillomavirus testing for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer: final results of the POBASCAM randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(1):78–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Castle PE, Stoler MH, Wright TC, Sharma A, Wright TL, Behrens CM. Performance of carcinogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and HPV16 or HPV18 genotyping for cervical cancer screening of women aged 25 years and older: a subanalysis of the ATHENA study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(9):880–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sankaranarayanan R, Nene BM, Shastri SS, Jayant K, Muwonge R, Budukh AM, et al. HPV screening for cervical cancer in rural India. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1385–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Khan MJ, Castle PE, Lorincz AT, Wacholder S, Sherman M, Scott DR, et al. The elevated 10-year risk of cervical precancer and cancer in women with human papillomavirus (HPV) type 16 or 18 and the possible utility of type-specific HPV testing in clinical practice. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(14):1072–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dillner J, Rebolj M, Birembaut P, Petry K-U, Szarewski A, Munk C, et al. Long term predictive values of cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening: joint European cohort study. BMJ. 2008;337:a1754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jeronimo J, Bansil P, Lim J, Peck R, Paul P, Amador JJ, et al. A multicountry evaluation of careHPV testing, visual inspection with acetic acid, and Papanicolaou testing for the detection of cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24(3):576–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhao F-H, Lewkowitz AK, Chen F, Lin MJ, Hu S-Y, Zhang X, et al. Pooled analysis of a self-sampling HPV DNA test as a cervical cancer primary screening method. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(3):178–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gök M, van Kemenade FJ, Heideman DAM, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L, Spruyt JWM, et al. Experience with high-risk human papillomavirus testing on vaginal brush-based self-samples of non-attendees of the cervical screening program. Int J Cancer. 2012;130(5):1128–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diama Bhadra Vale
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joana Froes Bragança
    • 1
  • Luiz Carlos Zeferino
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsHospital Dr. José Aristodemo Pinotti, State University of CampinasSao PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations