4.7 Article

Initial results of population based cervical cancer screening program using HPV testing in one million Turkish women

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 142, Issue 9, Pages 1952-1958

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.31212

Keywords

Turkey; HPV; HPV DNA screening; cervical cancer; cytology; population based screening

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To evaluate the Turkey's nationwide HPV DNA screening program on the basis of first 1 million screened women. Women over age 30 were invited for population based screening via HPV DNA and conventional cytology. Samples were collected by family physicians and the evaluations and reports had been performed in the National Central HPV laboratories. The acceptance rate for HPV based cervical cancer screening after first invitation was nearly 36.5%. Since HPV DNA tests have been implemented, cervical cancer screening rates have shown 4-5-fold increase in primary level. Through the evaluation of all, HPV positivity was seen in 3.5%. The commonest HPV genotypes were 16, followed by 51, 31, 52 and 18. Among the 37.515 HPV positive cases, cytological abnormality rate was 19.1%. Among HPV positive cases, 16.962 cases had HPV 16 or 18 or other oncogenic HPV types with abnormal cytology (>ASC-US). These patients were referred to colposcopy. The colposcopy referral rate was 1.6%. Among these, final clinico-pathological data of 3.499 patients were normal in 1.985 patients, CIN1 in 708, CIN2 in 285, CIN3 in 436 and cancer in 85 patients and only pap-smear program could miss 45.9% of CIN3 cases. The results of 1 million women including the evaluation of 13 HPV genotypes with respect to prevalence, geographic distribution and abnormal cytology results shows that HPV DNA can be used in primary level settings to have a high coverage rated screening program and is very effective compared to conventional pap-smear.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available