medigraphic.com
Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública

2003, Number S3

<< Back

salud publica mex 2003; 45 (S3)

Recommendations for cervical cancer screening programs in developing countries. The need for equity and technological development

Lazcano-Ponce E, Alonso P, Ruiz-Moreno JA, Hernández-Avila M

Language: English
References: 43
Page: 449-462
PDF size: 127.46 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The cervical cancer screening programs (CCSP) have not been very efficient in the developing countries. This explains the need to foster changes on policies, standards, quality control mechanisms, evaluation and integration of new screening alternatives considered as low and high cost, as well as to regulate colposcopy practices and the foundation of HPV laboratories. Cervical cancer (CC) is a disease most frequently found in poverty-stricken communities and reflecting a problem of equity at both levels gender and regional, and this, is not only due to social and economic development inequalities, but to the infrastructure and human resources necessary for primary care. For this reason, the CCSP program must be restructured, a) to primarily address unprivileged rural and urban areas; b) to foster actions aimed at ensuring extensive coverage as well as a similar quality of that coverage in every region; c) to use screening strategies in keeping with the availability of health care services. In countries with agreat regional heterogeneity, a variety of screening procedures must be regulated and standardized, including a combination of assisted visual inspection, cervical cytology and HPV detection; d) regional community intervention must be set up to assess the effectiveness of using HPV detection as an strategy in addition to cervical cytology (pap smear); e) the practice of colposcopy must be regulated to prevent the use of it in healthy women at a population level, thus preventing unnecessary diagnosis and treatment which not only are expensive but also causes unnecessary anxiety to women at risk; f) the operation of those clinical laboratories using HPV as a detection strategy must likewise be accredited and regulated and g) the CCSP program for assuring health care quality should meet the expectations of its beneficiaries, and increase the knowledge in cervical cancer related matters. Finally, though a variety of clinical tests on prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines against HPV are recently being developed worldwide; it will take at least from 5 to 10-years time to have them available in the market. For this reason, it will be necessary to intensify the CCSP programs. All these reasons lay emphasis on the need to reinforce actions for CCSP programs.


REFERENCES

  1. Lara E, Day EN, Hakama M. Trends in mortality from cervical cancer in the Nordic countries: Association with organized screening programes. Lancet 1987:1247-1249.

  2. Lazcano-Ponce E, Rascón-Pacheco R, Lozano R, Velasco E. Mortality from carcinoma of the uterine cervix in Mexico: impact of screening 1980-1990. Acta Cytol 1996;40:506-512.

  3. Miller AB. Cervical cancer screening programes, Geneva: World Health Organization, 1992.

  4. Mitchell H. Consistency of reporting endocervical cell. An intralaboratory and interlaboratory assessment. Acta Cytol 1994;38:310-314.

  5. Koss LG. Cytology: Accuracy or diagnosis. Cancer 1989;64:249-257.

  6. Alonso P, Lazcano E. Quality control in cytopathology laboratories in six Latin American Countries. In: Wied G, Keebler C, Rosenthal D, Schenck U, Somrak T, Vooijs P eds. Compendium on quality assurance, proficiency testing and workload limitations in clinical cytology Chicago: Tutorials of Cytology,1995:115-121.

  7. Lundenberg G. Quality assurance in cervical cytology. The papanicolaou smear. JAMA 1989;262:1672-1679.

  8. Muñoz N, Bosch FX, De Sanjose S, Tafur L, Izarzaguza I, Gili M et al. The causal link between human papillomavirus and invasive cervical cancer: A population-based case-control study in Colombia and Spain. Int J Cancer 1992;52:743-749.

  9. Zur Hausen H. Papillomaviruses in human cancer. Appl Pathol 1987;5(1):19-24.

  10. Walboomers JMM, Jacobs MV, Manos M, Bosch FX, Kummer JA, Shah K et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999;189:12-19.

  11. Koutsky L. Epidemiology of genital human papillomavirus infection. Am J Medicine 1997;102:3-8.

  12. Galloway D. Is vaccination against human papillomavirus a possibility? Lancet 1998;352:SIII22-SIII24.

  13. Pearcy JN, Keppel KG. A Summary measure of health disparity. Public Health Reports 2002;117:273-280.

  14. Hinselmann H. Verbesserung der Inspektionmöglichkeiten von Vulva, Vagina und portio. Münch Med Wschr 1925;72:1733.

  15. Bjorge T, Thoresen SO, Skare GB. Incidence, survival and mortality in cervical cancer in Norway, 1956-1990. Eur J Cancer 1993;29A(16):2291-2297.

  16. Megevand E, Denny L, Dehacek K y cols. Acetic acid visualization of the cervix: An alternative to cytologic screening. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:383-386.

  17. University of Zimbawe/JHPIEGO Cervical Cancer Project. Visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical-cancer screening: test qualities in a primary-care setting. Lancet 1999;353:869-873.

  18. Sigurdsson K. Effect of organized screening on the risk of cervical cancer. Evaluation of screening activity in Iceland,1964-1991. Int J Cancer 1993 Jun 19;54(4):563-70.

  19. Herrero R. Epidemiology of cervical cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1996;21:1-6.

  20. Editorial. Cell Content of Cervical Smears. Cytopathol 1990;1:129-130.

  21. Herbert A. Achievable Standards, Benchmarks for Reporting and Criteria for Evaluating Cervical Cytopathology. Cytopathol 1995;6:1-32.

  22. Martin-Hirsch P, Lilford R, Jarvis G, Kitchener HC. Efficacy of cervical-smear collection devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet 1999; 354 (9192):1763-1770.

  23. McCord ML, Stovall TG, Meric JL, Summitt RL Jr, Coleman SA. Cervical cytology: A randomized comparison of four sampling methods. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166:1772-1779.

  24. Ho GY, Bierman R, Beardsley L, Chang CJ, Burk RD. Natural history of cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women. N Engl J Med 1998;338(7):423-438.

  25. Sawaya GF, Grimes DA. New technologies in cervical cytology screening: A word of caution. Obstet Gynecol 1999;94:307-310.

  26. Iftner T, Villa LL. Chapter 12: Human papillomavirus technologies. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2003;(31):80-8.

  27. Salmerón J, Lazcano-Ponce E, Lörincz A, Hernández M, Hernández P, Leyva A et al. Comparison of HPV-based assays with Papanicolaou smears for cervical cancer screening in Morelos State, Mexico. Cancer Causes and Control 2003;14 (6): 505-512.

  28. Lörincz AT, Richart RM. Human papillomavirus DNA testing as an adjunct to cytology in cervical screening programs. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003;127(8):959-968.

  29. Castle PE, Schiffman M, Gravitt PE, Kendall H, Fishman S, Dong H et al. Comparisons of HPV DNA detection by MY09/11 PCR methods. J Med Virol 2002;68(3):417-423.

  30. Garner EI. Cervical cancer: Disparities in screening, treatment, and survival. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12(3):242S-247S.

  31. Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ; ASCCPSponsored Consensus Conference. 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA. 2002;287(16):2120-9.

  32. Paraskevaidis E, Koliopoulos G, Alamanos Y, Malamou-Mitsi V, Lolis ED, Kitchener HC. Human papillomavirus testing and the outcome of treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98(5 Pt 1):724-725.

  33. Richart RM. Current concepts in obstetrics and gynecology. The patient with abnormal Pap smear –screening techniques and management. N Engl J Med 1980;302:332-334.

  34. National Cancer Institute Workshop. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. JAMA 1989;262:931-934.

  35. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O’Connor D, Prey M, and Forum Group Members; Bethesda 2001 Workshop. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287(16):2140-2141.

  36. O’Meara AT. Present standards for cervical cancer screening. Curr Opin Oncol 2002;14:505-511.

  37. Elfgren K, Kalantari M, Moberger B et al. A population-based five year follow-up study of cervical human papillomavirus infection. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:561-567.

  38. Lörincz AT: Molecular methods for the detection of human papillomavirus infection. Obstet Gynecol Clin NA 1998;23:707-730.

  39. Autillo-Touati A, Joannes M, d’Ercole C, Robaglia-Schlupp A, Lambert A, Mazzella E et al. HPV typing by in situ hybridization on cervical cytologic smears with ASCUS. Acta Cytol. 1998 May-Jun;42(3):631-8.

  40. Sun Sun CA, Liu JF, Wu DM, Nieh S, Yu CP, Chu TY. Viral load of highrisk human papillomavirus in cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002;76(1):41-47.

  41. Steindel SJ, Granade S, Lee J, Avery G, Clarke LM, Jenny RW et al. Practice patterns of testing waived under the clinical laboratory improvement amendments. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126(12):1471-1479.

  42. Saturno PJ, Quintana O, Varo J. ¿Qué es la calidad?. En: Saturno PJ, et al. Tratado de calidad asistencial en atención primaria. Tomo I. Murcia: Du Pont Pharma, 1997:19-45.

  43. Koutsky LA, Ault KA, Wheeler CM, Brown DR, Barr E, Alvarez FB et al. Proof of Principle Study Investigators. A controlled trial of a human papillomavirus type 16 vaccine. N Engl J Med, 2002;347(21):1645-1651.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com