Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comment
, 11, 240

Screening for Cervical Cancer: When Theory Meets Reality

Affiliations
Comment

Screening for Cervical Cancer: When Theory Meets Reality

Mari Nygård. BMC Cancer.

Abstract

Cervical cancer screening reduces morbidity and mortality due to cervical cancer. However, there are many factors that determine the success of any cervical cancer prevention effort: the prevalence of human papillomavirus infection in general population, the existence of an organized screening program and the corresponding coverage, the existence and quality of the field and laboratory facilities for screening and diagnostic follow-up, and the facilities available for treating diagnosed lesions. Monitoring the patient path or "chain of action" for each patient with an abnormal screening result is of crucial importance. Cost-effectiveness models are widely used by decision-makers to determine which cervical cancer screening program would maximize health benefits within a given, usually limited, set of resources. Regardless of their level of sophistication, however, these models cannot replace empirical evaluations of the effectiveness of screening programs.Cervical cancer prevention activities need to be monitored and evaluated in each country where they are introduced to see that they meet performance standards. Policy-makers responsible for allocating resources for cervical cancer prevention have a duty to allocate resources not only for cervical cancer screening, but also for screening program surveillance.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Age-standarized (world standard population) incidence of (upper graf) and mortality (lower graph) from cervical cancer/105 in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden in 1945-2008.

Comment on

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 11 PubMed Central articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Cancer in Norway. Oslo: Cancer Registry of Norway; 2007. Cancer in Norway 2006. Cancer Incidence, mortality, survival and prevalence in Norway.
    1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010;127(12):2893–2917. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25516. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dasbach EJ, Elbasha EH, Insinga RP. Mathematical models for predicting the epidemiologic and economic impact of vaccination against human papillomavirus infection and disease. Epidemiol Rev. 2006;28:88–100. doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxj006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bray F, Loos AH, McCarron P, Weiderpass E, Arbyn M, Moller H, Hakama M, Parkin DM. Trends in cervical squamous cell carcinoma incidence in 13 European countries: changing risk and the effects of screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14(3):677–686. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-04-0569. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Engholm G, Ferlay J, Christensen N, Bray F, Gjerstorff ML, Klint A, Kotlum JE, Olafsdottir E, Pukkala E, Storm HH. NORDCAN--a Nordic tool for cancer information, planning, quality control and research. Acta Oncol. 2010;49(5):725–736. doi: 10.3109/02841861003782017. - DOI - PubMed
Feedback