CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 500Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementReproductive tract infections research

Cervical Cancer Screening: Past, Present, and Future

Open access
Bedell, Sarah L., Goldstein, Lena S., Goldstein, Amelia R., Goldstein, Andrew T.·2020·Sexual Medicine Reviews
DOI 10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.09.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Introduction: Cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in women in the developing world. New technologies have been developed to allow for more rapid, cost-effective, and sensitive cervical cancer screening and treatment. Aim: The aim of this study was to describe methods for detection and treatment of human papillomavirus (HPV), cervical dysplasia (CD), and cervical cancer. New technologies and updated screening strategies will be emphasized. Methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed to identify publications relevant to the subject. Main Outcome Measure: Sensitivity and cost-effectiveness of new cervical cancer screening methods were the main outcome measures. Results: HPV and cervical cancer have a significant global impact. Research and innovations related to detection and treatment are key in reducing their burden worldwide. Conclusion: Screening a woman for HPV and CD can dramatically decrease her risk of dying from cervical cancer. New, rapid, low-cost, HPV testing can allow for high-volume screening for the approximately 1.5 billion women who have never been screened. HPV screening can then be combined with high resolution digital colposcopy to detect CD. In the near future, these colposcopic images will be interpreted by artificial intelligence software. Detected lesions can then be treated easily and effectively with thermocoagulation. This see-and-treat model is a sensitive, efficient, and low-cost vision for the future.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.09.005

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999;189:12-19.
  2. Committee on Practice BulletinseGynecology. Practice bulletin no. 168: Cervical cancer screening and prevention. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:e111-e130.
  3. Rerucha C, Caro R, Wheeler V. Cervical cancer screening. Am Fam Physician 2018;97:441-447.
  4. Rodríguez AC, Schiffman M, Herrero R, et al. Rapid clearance of human papillomavirus and implications for clinical focus on persistent infections. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:513-517.
  5. Plummer M, Schiffman M, Castle PE, et al. A 2-year pro- spective study of human papillomavirus persistence among women with a cytological diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or low-grade squamous intra- epithelial lesion. J Infect Dis 2007;195:1582-1589.
  6. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans. Human Papillomaviruses. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2007. (IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, No. 90.) Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK321760/.
  7. Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, et al. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cer- vical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. 2012 ASCCP Consensus Guidelines Conference [published erratum appears in J Low Genit Tract Dis 2013;17:367]. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2013;17:S1-S27.
  8. Santesso N, Mustafa R, Schünemann H, et al. World Health Organization Guidelines for treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2e3 and screen-and-treat strategies to prevent cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2016;132:252-258.
  9. Southern SA, Herrington CS. Molecular events in uterine cervical cancer. Sex Transm Infect 1998;74:101-109.
  10. Hoffman BL, Williams JW. Ch. 29: Preinvasive Lesions of the Lower Genital Tract. Williams Gynecology. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Medical; 2012. p. 730-768.
  11. Yim EK, Park JS. The Role of HPV E6 and E7 oncoproteins in HPV-associated cervical carcinogenesis. Cancer Res Treat 2005;37:319-324.
  12. Bruni L, Diaz M, Barrionuevo-Rosas L, et al. Global estimates of human papillomavirus vaccination coverage by region and income level: A pooled analysis. Lancet 2016;4:E453À463.
  13. Buck CB, Thompson CD, Roberts JN, et al. Carrageenan is a potent inhibitor of papillomavirus infection. PLoS Pathog 2006;2:e69.
  14. Tan SY, Tatsumura Y. George Papanicolaou (1883e1962): Discoverer of the Pap smear. Singapore Med J 2015; 56:586-587.
  15. Soost HJ, Lange HJ, Lehmacher W, et al. The validation of cervical cytology. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Acta Cytol 1991;35:8-14.
  16. Shingleton HM, Patrick RL, Johnston WW, et al. The current status of the Papanicolaou smear. CA Cancer J Clin 1995; 45:305-320.
  17. Safaeian M, Solomon D, Castle PE. Cervical cancer prevention- cervical screening: Science in evolution. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2007;34:739-760.
  18. Fahey MT, Irwig L, Macaskill P. Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol 1995;141:680-689.
  19. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, et al. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: A systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:810-819.
  20. Bradford L, Goodman A. Cervical cancer screening and pre- vention in low-resource settings. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2013; 56:76-87.
  21. Wright TC, Stoler MH, Behrens CM, Sharma A, Zhang G, Wright TL. Primary cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus: End of study results from the ATHENA study using HPV as the first-line screening test. Gynecol Oncol 2015;136:189-197.
  22. Huh WK, Ault KA, Chelmow D, et al. Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: Interim clinical guidance. Obstet Gynecol 2015;125:330-337.
  23. Rizzo AE, Feldman S. Update on primary HPV screening for cervical cancer prevention. Curr Probl Cancer 2018; 42:507-520.
  24. Wright TC Jr, Denny L, Kuhn L, et al. HPV DNA testing of self-collected vaginal samples compared with cytologic screening to detect cervical cancer (comment). JAMA 2000;283:81-86.
  25. Ogilvie GS, Patrick DM, Schulzer M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of self collected vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus compared to clinician collected human papillomavirus speci- mens: A meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect 2005;81:207-212.
  26. Parkin DM, Nambooze S, Wabwire-Mangen F, et al. Changing cancer incidence in Kampala, Uganda, 1991-2006. Int J Cancer 2010;126:1187-1195.
  27. Dzuba IG, Diaz EY, Allen B, et al. The acceptability of self- collected samples for HPV testing vs. the Pap test as alter- natives in cervical cancer screening. J Womens Health Gend Based Med 2002;11:265-275.
  28. Tisci S, Shen YH, Fife D, et al. Patient acceptance of self- sampling for human papillomavirus in rural China. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2003;7:107-116.
  29. Smith K, Harrington K, Wingood G, et al. Self-obtained vaginal swabs for diagnosis of treatable sexually trans- mitted diseases in adolescent girls. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001;155:676-679.
  30. Sauvaget C, Fayette JM, Muwonge R, et al. Accuracy of visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical cancer screening. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2011;113:14-24.
  31. Jeronimo J, Bansil P, Lim J, 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;24:576-585.
  32. Herfs M, Yamamoto Y, Laury A, et al. A discrete popula- tion of squamocolumnar junction cells implicated in the pathogenesis of cervical cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012;109:10516-10521.
  33. Nessa A, Hussain MA, Rahman JN, et al. Screening for cer- vical neoplasia in Bangladesh using visual inspection with acetic acid. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2010;111:115-118.
  34. Ngoma T, Muwonge R, Mwaiselage J, et al. Evaluation of cervical visual inspection screening in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2010;109:100-104.
  35. Muwonge R, Manuel MG, Filipe AP, et al. Visual screening for early detection of cervical neoplasia in Angola. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2010;111:68-72.
  36. Gaffikin L, Lauterbach M, Blumenthal PD. Performance of visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical cancer screening: A qualitative summary of evidence to date. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2003;58:543-550.
  37. Sankaranarayanan R, Nene BM, Shastri SS, et al. HPV screening for cervical cancer in rural India. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1385-1394.
  38. Davis-Dao CA, Cremer M, Felix J, et al. Effect of cervicitis on visual inspection with acetic acid. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2008;12:282-286.
  39. Sun ZC, Cui Y, Yang L, et al. Study on the prevalence of reproductive tract infections and influencing factors on women in rural areas of the Middle and Western regions in China. Chin J Epidemiol 2010;31:961-964.
  40. Paçarada M, Lulaj S, Kongjeli G, et al. Factors associated with pathologic colposcopic and cytologic changes in 500 clinically asymptomatic women. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2010;108:7-11.
  41. Liu AH, Gold MA, Schiffman M, et al. Comparison of colpo- scopic impression based on live colposcopy and evaluation of static digital images. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2016;20:154-161.
  42. Thay S, Goldstein A, Goldstein LS, et al. Prospective cohort study examining cervical cancer screening methods in HIV- positive and HIV-negative Cambodian Women: A comparison of human papilloma virus testing, visualization with acetic acid and digital colposcopy. BMJ Open 2019;9:e026887.
  43. Hermens M, Ebisch RM, Galaal K, et al. Alternative colposcopy techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:795-803.
  44. Spitzer M. The Era of "Digital Colposcopy" will be here soon. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2015;19:273-274.
  45. Hu L, Bell D, Antani S, et al. An observational study of deep learning and automated evaluation of cervical images for cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2019;111:923-932.
  46. Cremer ML, Conzuelo-Rodriguez G, Cherniak W, et al. Ablative therapies for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in low-resource settings: Findings and key questions. J Glob Oncol 2018; 4:1-10.
  47. Viviano M, Kenfack B, Catarino R, et al. Feasibility of ther- mocoagulation in a screen-and-treat approach for the treat- ment of cervical precancerous lesions in sub-Saharan Africa. BMC Womens Health 2017;17:2.
  48. Dolman L, Sauvaget C, Muwonge R, et al. Meta-analysis of the efficacy of cold coagulation as a treatment method for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: A systematic review. BJOG 2014; 121:929-942.
  49. Hancock G, Hellner K, Dorrell L. Therapeutic HPV vaccines. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2018;47:59-72.
  50. Trimble CL, Morrow MP, Kraynyak KA, et al. Safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of VGX-3100, a therapeutic synthetic DNA vaccine targeting human papillomavirus 16 and 18 E6 and E7 proteins for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3: A rando- mised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2b trial. Lancet 2015;386:2078.e88.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bedell, S. L., Goldstein, L. S., Goldstein, A. R., & Goldstein, A. T.
Affiliations
  • The Center for Vulvovaginal Disorders , New York , USA
  • Yale University (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Goldstein, Andrew T.
ORCID
Goldstein, Amelia R.
Venue
Sexual Medicine Reviews
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2019-11-29
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
28-37
ISSN
  • 2050-0513 (ISSN-L)
  • 2050-0521
DOI
10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.09.005
OpenAlex
W2991895141
Cited by
500
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 64 · 2025: 125 · 2024: 129 · 2023: 87 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 9
FWCI
3.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Sexual Medicine Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Elen
  • Ipsen
  • Endoceutics
  • SST
  • Gynecologic Cancers Research Foundation
  • Cellular Medicine Association
  • The Gynecologic Cancers Research Foundation
  • The Cellular Medicine Association
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
Keywords
cervical cancer screening, human papillomavirus, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, HPV testing, digital colposcopy, artificial intelligence, thermocoagulation, cost-effectiveness, screening sensitivity, cervical cancer prevention
MeSH terms
Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Forecasting, Humans, Papillomaviridae, Early Detection of Cancer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review