How Many Human Papillomavirus Types Do We Need to Screen For?
Abstract
In population-based cervical screening, human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, and 52 are associated with >85% of HPV-associated cervical cancers. For 8 other types currently screened for, together found in <2% of these cancers, screening may be debatable.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Both comprehensive global meta-analyses and extensive long-term cohort studies have consistently identified variations in the oncogenic potential among different HPV types.
“However, both comprehensive global meta-analyses and extensive long-term cohort studies have consistently identified variations in the oncogenic potential among different HPV types.”
The consideration of screening for all 14 HPV types could potentially lead to a suboptimal balance between the associated harms and benefits.
“Moreover, the consideration of screening for all 14 HPV types could potentially lead to a suboptimal balance between the associated harms and benefits [31, 33].”
A Swedish study revealed that HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, or 52 were detected in 689 out of 808 screen-detected invasive cervical cancers (ICC), constituting 85.3% of cases.
“Notably, a Swedish study revealed that HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, or 52 were detected in 689 out of 808 screen-detected invasive cervical cancers (ICC), constituting 85.3% of cases [31].”
The inclusion of additional HPV types 35, 39, 51, 56, 58, 59, 66, or 68 resulted in a minimal increase in prevalence, accounting for only 12 of the 808 cases (1.5% for all eight types collectively).
“The inclusion of additional HPV types, specifically 35, 39, 51, 56, 58, 59, 66, or 68, which are also encompassed in currently employed HPV tests, resulted in a minimal increase in prevalence, accounting for only 12 of the 808 cases (1.5% for all eight types collectively).”
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bandeira, I. C., Comerlato, J., Bessel, M., Fernandes, B. V., Mota, G., Villa, L. L., de Souza, F. M. A., Pereira, G. F. M., & Wendland, E. M. (2024) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0305122 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sundström, K., & Dillner, J.
- Affiliations
- Karolinska University Hospital (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Dillner, Joakim
- Venue
- The Journal of Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2020-09-17
- Volume
- 223
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1510-1511
- ISSN
- 0022-1899 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6613
- OpenAlex
- W3087526598
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 3.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- The Journal of Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Swedish Strategic Research Foundation (RB13-0011)
- Swedish Cancer Society (CAN 2017/459)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
- Keywords
- human papillomavirus, HPV genotypes, cervical cancer screening, HPV16, HPV 18, high-risk HPV, screening coverage, cervical cancer prevention
- MeSH terms
- Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Papillomavirus Infections, Alphapapillomavirus, 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
