4.5 Review

Human Papillomavirus and Cancer Prevention: Gaps in Knowledge and Prospects for Research, Policy, and Advocacy

期刊

VACCINE
卷 30, 期 -, 页码 F175-F182

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.06.092

关键词

HPV; cancer prevention; policy; advocacy

资金

  1. European Commission [HEALTH-F3-2010-242061, HEALTH-F2-2011-282562]
  2. Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Spanish Government) [FIS PI10/02995, RCESP C03/09, RTICESP C03/10, RTIC RD06/0020/0095, CIBERESP]
  3. Agencia de Gestio d'Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca - Generalitat de Catalunya (Catalonian Government) [AGAUR 2005SGR00695, AGAUR 2009SGR126]
  4. Merck
  5. GlaxoSmithKline
  6. Sanofi Pasteur MSD
  7. Qiagen
  8. GSK

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recognition that human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the central, necessary cause of cervical cancer paved the way to new fronts of prevention via improved screening methods and HPV vaccination. Much has been learned in all fronts, from the molecular basis of our understanding of how HPV causes disease to the health economics of preventive strategies at the individual and population levels. Progress in other areas of cancer control has yet to show the same multi- and trans-disciplinary gains seen in research on HPV-associated malignancies, which is one of the unequivocal success stories in disease prevention. Yet, as an embarrassment of riches, much more research is needed to fill the gaps in knowledge that remain before we are able to reap the benefits from the knowledge translation from all fronts. Public health research on setting-specific implementation of HPV-based preventive strategies and more concerted advocacy to counter barriers facing the adoption of these strategies are likely to yield major dividends in reducing the burden of HPV-associated diseases. This article forms part of a special supplement entitled Comprehensive Control of HPV Infections and Related Diseases Vaccine Volume 30, Supplement 5, 2012. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据