Frontiers of cervical cancer research: an analysis from the top 100 most influential articles in the field

Lei Liang, Chuangxiu Song, Chun Chang, Shichao Chen, Bo Yang, Li Sun
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.11.08.24316970

Abstract

Backgroung Cervical cancer (CC) is one of the common gynecological malignancies, which has a serious negative impact on the quality of life of patients, and brings huge economic pressure and burden to society. The most effective treatment for CC has become an important issue worldwide.

Method In order to determine the current research hotspots and development trends in a particular field, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of the top 100 cited papers. To achieve this, we searched for the top 100 most cited papers on the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI Expanded) on the Web of Science (WOS), based on the CCS (citation count score). We then reviewed relevant literature from different years, countries/regions, institutions, authors, keywords, and references. Using VOS viewer and Cite Space software, we constructed a knowledge map, and finally compiled the relevant information we retrieved from the literature using Excel. Through this process, we were able to make predictions about the current focus and trends in the field.

Results Between 2013 and 2023, numerous journals published the top 100 cited research papers. The International Agency for Research on Cancer and the American Cancer Society were the most cited institutions. The United States contributed the most papers, followed by France and England. The top 5 keyword co-occurrences were cervical cancer, women, human papillomavirus, United States, and colorectal cancer. Cluster analysis results suggest that future research in CCS may focus on prophylaxis and HPV vaccination.

Conclusion Bibliometric analysis can quickly and intuitively identify the focus and boundaries of cervical cancer research. Our findings suggest that prophylaxis and HPV vaccination may be the focus and trend for future research on cervical cancer.

1. Introduction

Cervical cancer is one of the common female malignancies, and persistent infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is the main cause of its development. Globally, cervical cancer is characterized by unequal incidence and mortality rates [1]. Data from the 2018 Global Cancer Registry report show that around 85% of cervical cancers occur in low- and middle-income countries, and that cervical cancer incidence in low- and middle-income countries is nearly twice the incidence of high-income countries, with a mortality rate of around three times that of high-income countries [2]. Without aggressive and effective measures, more than 44 million women in low- and middle-income countries will suffer from cervical cancer in the next 50 years. It significantly increases the economic burden on individuals and society, as well as the mental stress on patients and their families. Therefore, the prevention, control, and treatment of cervical cancer are of great significance to patients, families, and society [3]. Cervical cancer is currently the only cancer with a clear etiology that is preventable and curable, and with the three-tier prevention and control means of HPV vaccine, screening, and early diagnosis and treatment, it is expected to be the world’s first malignant tumor to be eliminated [4].

The first article on CCS was published in 2013 year [5]. In the past 10 years, researchers have made significant progress in the diagnosis and screening of CC. However, understanding the overall progress and research trends in the CC disease area is challenging, and scientific analyses using bibliometric techniques are essential [6–7]. Screening by understanding the top 100 cited articles in the field of CC will provide researchers with a deeper understanding of current research priorities. Bibliometric analyses can fully assist researchers in studying a particular current research area and is a very effective method of bibliometric analysis. Unfortunately, no studies with a similar focus were found in our search of the prior literature. The bibliometric analysis was used to identify the top 100 cited articles in the field and to analyze the research hotspots and research trends in the field. We believe that this study will help accelerate the development of the field of CCS research and encourage scholars to produce new findings in this area.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search strategy

We used WoSCC literature related to managing cervical cancer screening against cervical cancer. The search strategy included cervical cancer screening and its synonyms (subject terms), and cervical cancer and its synonyms. The publication timeframe was from the build to December 2023 (search date: 01 January 2024). We finally included the top 100 most cited articles for the study. The specific search strategy is shown in

2.2. Inclusion criteria

Publications are ranked in descending order of overall citation frequency. Selected articles and reviews from different academic journals including Cervical Cancer Screening, and Cervical Malignancies. Letters, conference abstracts, book reviews, conference presentations, and news reports were excluded. Initial screening was done independently by two scholars to eliminate irrelevant topics. They identified the most cited publications by reading the titles, abstracts, keywords, and full text of 100 papers. If two researchers disagree on whether an article should be included, we must consult a third researcher to find a solution.

2.3. Bibliometric analysis

According to the system functionality of WoSCC, after downloading the details of country/region distribution, year of publication, institution, journal, authors, and keyword-related documents, we used Office 16 to sort and analyze the publications. CiteSpace 6.1.R6, VOSviewer 1.6.19, Scimago Graphica 1.0.30 Visual analyses of article features to identify current research hotspots and potential trends in the field of CCS. VOSviewer is a bibliometrics application for the creation of scientometric networks and knowledge visualization [8]. CiteSpace was used for identifying the network of co-authors of countries/institutions, bitmap analysis, and keyword detection with citation explosion [9]. Citation explosion indicates an increase in hot topics for potential work in the field over a given time, which is an important indicator for identifying research trends.

2.4. Bibliometric analysis terminology

Knowledge graph visualization is an outgrowth of the development of graphical data technologies. Data visualization is the aggregation of available information into a large network that contains semantic models of data for users to query and explore. In this way, raw data is converted into graphical information and the information is presented more intuitively and visually. Intermediate centrality is the number of times a node is located on the shortest path between other nodes and is one of the key metrics for measuring the importance of a node. Nodes with intermediate centrality greater than 0.1 are generally considered to be critical nodes. The more times a node lies on the shortest path, the higher the centrality of the node.

2.5 Ethical review

As this article is a visual analysis summary of previously published articles, it does not need to pass ethical review.

3. Results

Citation characteristics of the included

3.1 Articles

Between 1929 and 2023, 28,443 articles were published on early screening for CC. Two researchers combed through the research topics and article abstracts to exclude those articles in which CCS was not the main research topic. The eligible articles were added to this study in descending order according to the frequency of citation.

The top 100 cited papers are shown in Table 2. These 100 papers received a total of 56802 citations. There are 6,576 references in the top 100 cited papers. The most frequently cited article is “Global Cancer Statistics.2012” [10] by Torre, Lindsey A. (14567 citations). Next is “Cancer Statistics,2019” [11] by Siegel, RL (4436 citations), “Global Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates and Trends-An Update” [12] (2501 citations), “The Global Burden of Cancer 2013 Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration” [13] (2107 citations), “Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis” [14] (1785 citations), “Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995-2009: analysis of individual data for 25,676,887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2)” [15] (1673 citations), “Cervical cancer” [1] (1202 citations), “Worldwide burden of cancer attributable to HPV by site, country and HPV type” [16] (1181 citations), “Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials” [17] (1139 citations), “Cancer statistics for African Americans, 2019” [18] (1116 citations). These are the articles that have been cited more than 1,000 times.

View this table:
Table 1 Search strategy
View this table:
Table 2 The top 100 cited papers in CCS

3.2 Year of publication and citation

We depict their annual distribution, annual citation frequency distribution, and overall citation frequency distribution in a line graph (Figure 1). The top 100 most cited papers were written between 2013 and 2023. Fourteen of the top 100 most-cited papers were published in 2017, 2018, and 2019. The paper with the highest total number of citations was published in 2015 (14,567 citations) and had the greatest impact on CC research.

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Year of publication and citation

3.3 Author and co-author analysis

There was active cooperation among some of the author clusters. (Fig. 2) The top 100 cited publications were contributed by 264 different authors. Jemal, Ahmedin authored the greatest number of papers (N = 12), followed by Sigel, Rebecca L (N = 8). Utilizing Jemal, Ahmedin as its core, the network’s total connection strength is 292, with the largest group of linked objects consisting of 184 items. In Figure 2, we can see that there is a direct linkage between Jemal, Ahmedin, and Sigel, Rebecca L. This means that they have a collaborative relationship, as a team to conduct their research.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Network visualization of authors that contributed to the top 100 cited papers

3.4 Distribution of countries/regions and institutions

Countries/regions

A total of 240 countries/regions did research on the top 100 cited papers. The USA contributed the most publications (N = 70), followed by the FRANCE (N = 25) and the ENGLAND (N = 19). Seven main clusters were formed by all the countries/regions. The USA established the largest national cooperative network, encompassing 70 countries/regions, followed by France, which covered 25 countries/regions. The bibliometric map highlighted the close relationship between countries/regions (Fig.3). Collaborative efforts across countries/regions resulted in thicker line segments between nodes. In recent years, Japan and India have had the highest publication numbers. The bibliometric map highlighted the close relationship between countries/regions.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Networks showing the collaboration among countries in the top 100 cited papers

Institutions

Of the included studies, Int Agcy Res Canc & Amer Canc Soc contributed the most papers (N = 17), followed by NCI (N = 10), which were the institutions with more than 10 publications. Also, Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr (N = 7), Ctr Dis Control & Prevent, and Univ Sydney (N = 6) had the most publications, and Amer Canc Soc had the most citations (N = 24157), followed by Int Agcy Res. Canc (N = 7429) and NCI (N = 2046). Int Agcy Res Canc and Amer Canc Soc are institutions that have published more articles in recent years. (Fig.4)

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Network visualization of the institutions that contributed to the top 100 cited papers

3.5 Journal

The dual-journal map overlay shows the three main citation pathways (Figure 5), with papers published in Medicine/ Medicine/ Clinical/ Sports/ Neuro/ Immunity journals citing Genes/ Biology/ Genetics and Surgery/ Rehabilitation/ Sports. paper. This conclusion can be used as a reference for new scholars engaged in CCS research.

Fig. 5
Fig. 5

dual-journal map

3.6 Keywords co-occurrence, clusters, and bursts

A total of 242 keywords were identified in the top 100 cited papers, with a total of 997 connecting lines between keywords. We excluded keywords such as place names and then evaluated the data shown in the graphs. The most common keywords were cervical cancer (N = 34), women (N = 21), human papillomavirus (N = 16), colorectal cancer (N = 16), and breast cancer (N = 15). Among them, human papillomavirus (N = 16) was an important causative factor for cervical cancer. Colorectal cancer (N = 16), breast cancer (N = 15), and lung cancer (N = 9) were strongly associated with cervical cancer. Human papillomavirus vaccination (N = 10) is an effective means of preventing cervical cancer (Table 3). In other areas, The United States (N = 16) and Africa (N = 2) were the two most frequent countries. Pelvic radiation therapy (N = 4) as a treatment for advanced cervical cancer.

View this table:
Table 3 Top 10 co-occurring keywords in the top 100 cited papers on CCS

Clustering makes it easy to determine the distribution of research content on a given topic. The smaller the cluster ordinal number, the more nodes it contains, indicating that the more keywords it contains, the hotter the clustering research. These keywords are further subdivided into 13 clusters, of which the first 10 clusters are as follows (Fig. 6): cluster 1 (cancer statistics), cluster 2 (cervical screening), cluster 3 (hpv vaccine), cluster 4 (human papillomavirus testing), cluster 5 (systematic review), cluster 6 (three-layer perceptron), cluster 7 (cervical cancer tumorigenesis), cluster 8 (cancer screening), cluster 9 (ASCAP).

Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Network visualization keywords and clustering

We created a keyword timeline chart to analyze trends in keyword research in recent years (Fig. 7). Back before 2014, researchers realized that long-term HPV infection can lead to cervical cancer, and HPV, cervical cancer screening, and HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer have been hot research topics in recent years. In recent years, researchers have studied the development of cervical cancer and the safety of treatment from cytology and molecular. The results of cluster analysis suggest that the safety and efficacy of cervical cancer prevention, screening, and treatment may be the focus and trend of future research on CCS.

Fig. 7
Fig. 7

Keyword clustering analysis of the top 100 cited papers changes by year

3.7 Burst

We created keyword emergence charts to illustrate the hot trends in research for cervical cancer screening in recent years (Fig. 8). Initially, there was interest in the relationship between breast, colorectal, and lung cancer and cervical cancer. Human papillomavirus was the longest studied of all the keywords. In recent years, researchers have been focusing on the diagnosis, infection mortality, and risk.

Fig. 8
Fig. 8

Network visualization of the keywords with the strongest citation bursts of the top 100 cited papers

Infection and diagnosis have become a new research topic, indicating that researchers are more and more focused on the prevention and diagnosis of cervical cancer. The results of cluster analysis suggest that prevention of infection and early diagnosis of cervical cancer may be the focus and trend of future research on CCS.

3.8 Co-cited articles and co-cited reference cluster

Typically we use co-citation relationships to determine the degree of connectivity between different publications, which is said to occur if two or more articles are cited in one or more articles at the same time. Therefore, we create cluster network diagrams and co-citation relationships via citespace (Fig. 9). According to the clustering diagram (Q = 0.8602, S = 0.9525), the quality of the clustering diagram is generally considered to be better when Q > 0.3 and S > 0.5. Therefore, the results of the clustering diagram in this study are convincing. Figure 11 depicts the evolution of cluster analyses over several years of co-cited papers and co-cited references for the top 100 cited documents. We used CiteSpace software to calculate the citations with the highest burst intensity over the last 10 years. Figure 10 lists the cited papers[19–42].

Fig. 9
Fig. 9

Co-cited articles and co-cited reference analysis of the top 100 cited papers

Fig. 10
Fig. 10

Top 25 references with the strongest citation bursts of the top 100 cited papers

Fig. 11
Fig. 11

Co-cited articles and co-cited reference cluster analysis of the top 100 cited papers changes by year

Of all the discourses on CCS, a multicenter study by Ronco, G. et al. showed the importance of HPV-based or liquid-based cytology for early CC detection. Arbyn, M tested hr-HPV women for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse by performing hrHPV testing as well as colposcopy and biopsy and therefore concluded that hrHPV testing is important in the early diagnosis of CC. Hall, MT used a modeling study to estimate the age-standardized incidence of CC in HPV-vaccinated women a few years later and is on track to reach a target of 4 new cases per 100,000 women per year in the future. In conclusion, most trials have shown the importance of early screening for the diagnosis of CC and the availability of a CC vaccine to help prevent CC.

Analysis

Discussion

Over the past nearly two decades, researchers have made many efforts and achieved promising results in the early diagnosis and prevention of CC, but barriers remain and future ones need to be broken through.

General information from the top 100 cited papers

In this study, we summarised the 100 most cited papers screened by CCS. Using rigorously standardized bibliometric and visual analysis methods, we derive global trends regarding the most frequently cited literature in the field of CCS research. Based on specific analyses and reliable metrics, bibliometric analyses can be analysed to summarise the characteristics of published articles, and assessing the most cited papers can provide medical researchers in the field with both important information about the focus of this research direction and future research directions.

In terms of the types of articles selected, most of the top 100 cited papers are original articles, mostly distributed between 2013 and 2023. The top 20 most cited papers account for approximately 80% of all citations in the top 100 most cited papers. Ronco, G was the main contributor to the most influential article, indicating that their research is a potential hotspot in the field [17]. Siegel, RL et al. 2019 published “Cancer Statistics,2019” in Ca-a Cancer Journal for Clinicians and received the most citations [11]. By summarizing the morbidity and mortality of CC and the fact that CC has been effectively controlled in recent years, this article demonstrates that early diagnosis and prevention of CC have a huge impact on the diagnosis and treatment of the disease [43–46]. Recently Singh, D et al. published “Global Estimates of incidence and mortality of Cervical Cancer in 2020: A Baseline Analysis of the WHO Global Cervical Cancer Elimination Initiative” in Lancet Global Health addresses the dramatic changes in the global cervical cancer landscape today by assessing the extent of inequalities in global cervical cancer incidence and mortality to accelerate progress towards the WHO’s goal of eliminating CC [47].

The United States has the highest number of publications (N = 70), and in recent years, Japan and India have had the highest number of publications. This indicates that the United States has invested a lot of research in early screening and prevention of CC and has obtained significant results [44,46], and more countries are paying more attention to the prevention of CC [48–52].

Limitations

This study also has several limitations as follows. Although Web of Science is the most commonly used database for literature searches, it may have some of its earlier publications missing. In order to perform an accurate search of the literature, we used a title keyword search method, which may result in them being accurate enough but may not be comprehensive enough.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first bibliometric assessment of the most frequently cited literature on the early diagnosis of CC. The findings suggest that most of the important studies on CC were published in the last decade. Increasing attention is being paid to the early diagnosis and prevention of CC both nationally and internationally. Future research directions include universal access to vaccines, simplicity of early screening for CC, screening for risk genes relevant to clinical studies of CC, and clinical trials of treatments.

Data Availability

All files are available from the database.

Author contributions

LL conducted this study, produced the first draft, and refined it. Literature search, retrieval and data collection were conducted by CSC, SCX and CC. Data visualisation and graphical interpretation were carried out by CC and CSC.SL and YB were instrumental in providing significant support or funding. All authors participated and approved the final paper before submission.

Funding

Key research program of science and technology in hebei province (No.20210997).

Declarations

The authors declare that the study was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be interpreted as potential conflicts of interest.

Informed consent is not applicable.

Informed consent

Not applicable

Ethical review

This article is a visual analysis of a published article to which ethical review does not apply.

Abbreviations

CCS
cervical cancer screening
CC
cervical cancer
IF
impact factor
RCT
randomized controlled trial
WoSCC
Web of Science Core Collection.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Cohen PA, Jhingran A, Oaknin A, et al. Cervical cancer. Lancet. 2019 Jan 12;393(10167):169–182.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Vu M, Yu J, Awolude OA, et al. Cervical cancer worldwide. Curr Probl Cancer. 2018 Sep;42(5):457–465.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Joshi R, Alim M, Kengne AP, et al. Task shifting for non-communicable disease management in low and middle income countries--a systematic review. PLoS One. 2014 Aug 14;9(8):e103754.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Harper DM, DeMars LR. HPV vaccines - A review of the first decade. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Jul;146(1):196–204.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Massad LS, Einstein MH; 2012 ASCCP Consensus Guidelines Conference, et al. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Apr;121(4):829–846.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    Siegel RL, Fedewa SA, Miller KD, et al. Cancer statistics for Hispanics/Latinos, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015 Nov-Dec;65(6):457–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    Smith RA, Andrews KS, Brooks D, et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2018: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jul;68(4):297–316.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 2010;84:523–38.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    Liang M, Meng Y, Zhou S, et al. Research hotspots and trends analysis of ankylosing spondylitis: a bibliometric and scientometric analysis from 2009 to 2018. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8:1445.
  10. 10.↵
    Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015 Mar;65(2):87–108.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019 Jan;69(1):7–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Torre LA, Siegel RL, Ward EM, et al. Global Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates and Trends--An Update. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016 Jan;25(1):16–27.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration; Fitzmaurice C, Dicker D, et al. The Global Burden of Cancer 2013. JAMA Oncol. 2015 Jul;1(4):505–27.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, et al. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Feb;8(2):e191–e203.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    Allemani C, Weir HK, CONCORD Working Group; Carreira H, et al. Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995-2009: analysis of individual data for 25,676,887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2). Lancet. 2015 Mar 14;385(9972):977–1010.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    de Martel C, Plummer M, Vignat J, et al;. Worldwide burden of cancer attributable to HPV by site, country and HPV type. Int J Cancer. 2017 Aug 15;141(4):664–670.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfström KM; International HPV screening working group; et al. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2014 Feb 8;383(9916):524-32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    DeSantis CE, Miller KD, Goding Sauer A, et al. Cancer statistics for African Americans, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019 May;69(3):211–233.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, et al. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Feb;8(2):e191–e203. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30482-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.
    Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW, et al. American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012 Apr;137(4):516–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.
    National Lung Screening Trial Research Team; Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 4;365(5):395–409.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. 22.
    Plummer M, Franceschi S, Vignat J, et al. Global burden of gastric cancer attributable to Helicobacter pylori. Int J Cancer. 2015 Jan 15;136(2):487–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.
    Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J, et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol. 2012 Jun;61(6):1079–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.
    Anderson BO, Cazap E, El Saghir NS, et al. Optimisation of breast cancer management in low-resource and middle-resource countries: executive summary of the Breast Health Global Initiative consensus, 2010. Lancet Oncol. 2011 Apr;12(4):387–98.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.
    Forman D, de Martel C, Lacey CJ, et al. Global burden of human papillomavirus and related diseases. Vaccine. 2012 Nov 20;30 Suppl 5:F12–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.
    Alemany L, Cubilla A, Halec G, et al. Role of Human Papillomavirus in Penile Carcinomas Worldwide. Eur Urol. 2016 May;69(5):953–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.
    Alemany L, Saunier M, Alvarado-Cabrero I, et al. Human papillomavirus DNA prevalence and type distribution in anal carcinomas worldwide. Int J Cancer. 2015 Jan 1;136(1):98–107.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. 28.
    Agorastos T, Chatzistamatiou K, Katsamagkas T, et al. Primary screening for cervical cancer based on high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) detection and HPV 16 and HPV 18 genotyping, in comparison to cytology. PLoS One. 2015 Mar 20;10(3):e0119755.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.
    Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfström KM, Tunesi S, et al. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2014 Feb 8;383(9916):524–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. 30.
    Drolet M, Bénard É, Boily MC, et al. Population-level impact and herd effects following human papillomavirus vaccination programmes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015 May;15(5):565–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.
    Alemany L, Saunier M, Tinoco L, et al. Large contribution of human papillomavirus in vaginal neoplastic lesions: a worldwide study in 597 samples. Eur J Cancer. 2014 Nov;50(16):2846–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.
    Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network; Albert Einstein College of Medicine; Analytical Biological Services;, et al. Integrated genomic and molecular characterization of cervical cancer. Nature. 2017 Mar 16;543(7645):378–384.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.
    Ahnen DJ, Wade SW, Jones WF, et al. The increasing incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer: a call to action. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014 Feb;89(2):216–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.
    Lew JB, Simms KT, Smith MA, et al. Primary HPV testing versus cytology-based cervical screening in women in Australia vaccinated for HPV and unvaccinated: effectiveness and economic assessment for the National Cervical Screening Program. Lancet Public Health. 2017 Feb;2(2):e96–e107.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.
    Watson M, Benard V, King J, et al. National assessment of HPV and Pap tests: Changes in cervical cancer screening, National Health Interview Survey. Prev Med. 2017 Jul;100:243–247.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. 36.
    US Preventive Services Task Force; Curry SJ, Krist AH, et al. Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018 Aug 21;320(7):674–686.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.
    Simms KT, Smith MA, Lew JB, et al. Will cervical screening remain cost-effective in women offered the next generation nonavalent HPV vaccine? Results for four developed countries. Int J Cancer. 2016 Dec 15;139(12):2771–2780.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.
    Drolet M, Bénard É, Pérez N, et al. Population-level impact and herd effects following the introduction of human papillomavirus vaccination programmes: updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2019 Aug 10;394(10197):497–509.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.
    Hall IJ, Tangka FKL, Sabatino SA, et al. Patterns and Trends in Cancer Screening in the United States. Prev Chronic Dis. 2018 Jul 26;15:E97.
  40. 40.
    Lei J, Ploner A, Elfström KM, et al. HPV Vaccination and the Risk of Invasive Cervical Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 1;383(14):1340–1348.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.
    Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, et al. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Feb;8(2):e191–e203.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    Arbyn M, Smith SB, Temin S, et al. Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses. BMJ. 2018 Dec 5;363:k4823.
  43. 43.↵
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023 Jan;73(1):17–48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    Arbyn M, Smith SB; Collaboration on Self-Sampling and HPV Testing. Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses. BMJ. 2018 Dec 5;363:k4823.
  45. 45.
    Fontham ETH, Wolf AMD, Church TR, et al. Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Sep;70(5):321–346.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    Smith RA, Andrews KS, Brooks D, et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2019: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019 May;69(3):184–210.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    Wright TC, Stoler MH, Behrens CM, et al. 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 Feb;136(2):189–97.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    Smith RA, Andrews KS, Brooks D, et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2018: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jul;68(4):297–316.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.
    Singh D, Vignat J, Lorenzoni V, et al. Global estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2020: a baseline analysis of the WHO Global Cervical Cancer Elimination Initiative. Lancet Glob Health. 2023 Feb;11(2):e197–e206.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. 50.
    Cibula D, Pötter R, Planchamp F, et al. The European Society of Gynaecological Oncology/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/European Society of Pathology guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2018 Jun;127(3):404–416.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.
    Vaccarella S, Lortet-Tieulent J, Plummer M, et al. Worldwide trends in cervical cancer incidence: impact of screening against changes in disease risk factors. Eur J Cancer. 2013 Oct;49(15):3262–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  52. 52.↵
    Torre LA, Sauer AM, Chen MS Jr., et al. Cancer statistics for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, 2016: Converging incidence in males and females. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 May;66(3):182–202.
    OpenUrlPubMed
Back to top
Posted November 08, 2024.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Frontiers of cervical cancer research: an analysis from the top 100 most influential articles in the field
Lei Liang, Chuangxiu Song, Chun Chang, Shichao Chen, Bo Yang, Li Sun
medRxiv 2024.11.08.24316970; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.11.08.24316970
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area