0.829
IF
20
MNiSW
166.26
ICV
Online first
RESEARCH PAPER
 
CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
 
 

New directions in cervical cancer prophylaxis worldwide and in Poland – Case study of the Polish rural female population

Beata Osuch 1,  
 
1
Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
2
Department of Oncology and Internal Medicine, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
KEYWORDS:
ABSTRACT:
Introduction:
Cervical cancer is one of the most frequent malignant neoplasms in females. Such neoplasms can be almost completely eliminated by means of adequate primary and secondary prophylaxis. The most developed countries focus their attention on the improvement of prophylaxis systems, test quality, and efficacy improvement, as well as on the expansion of the primary prophylaxis. In Poland, the discussions focus on the improvement of the malfunctioning population programme.

Objective:
Drawing on recent research findings, the article presents current Polish and global recommendations with regard to screening tests for cervical cancer. The results of the Population Programme of Prophylaxis and Early Detection of Cervical Cancer are discussed in the context of current trends of healthy behaviour among women inhabiting rural areas.

Description of the state of knowledge:
In the future, it will be relevant to increase the number of human papillary virus (HPV) tests as part of the prophylaxis programme, especially among the high risk patient group. In particular, there is a necessity to increase the number of vaccinations among young women, especially before the beginning of their sexual activity, as well as to establish new strategies of secondary prophylaxis in this group. At present, women who had been vaccinated should undergo routine screening. In Poland, the report based on SIMP registry (IT System of Prophylaxis Monitoring), shows that only 27% of the 3.3 million of invited women participated in the cytology tests. The data analysis shows that women living in rural areas more often respond and participate in the tests, compared to women living in the cities (39.3% vs. 16.8%).

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Agnieszka Maździarz   
Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
 
REFERENCES (17):
1. Hajdu SI, Ehya H. A Note from History: Foundation of Diagnostic Cytology. Annals of Clinical & Labolatory Science 2008; 38: 296–299.
2. Kizer N, Peipert JF. Cervical Cancer Screening: Primum Non Nocere. Ann Intern Med. 2012, 156: 896–897.
3. Moyer VA. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Cervical Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012, 156: 880–91.
4. Slaslow DS, Solomon D, Lawson HW, Killackey M, Kulasingam SL, Cain J, 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, 137: 516–542.
5. Castle PE, Rausa A, Walls T, Gravitt PE, Partridge EE, Olivo V, et al. Comparative community outreach to increase cervical cancer screening in the Mississippi Delta. Prev Med. 2012, 52: 452–455.
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National and state vaccination coverage among adolescents aged 13 through 17 years – United States 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011; 60(33): 1117–23.
7. Anhang R, Goodman A, Goldie SJ. HPV Communication: Review of Existing Research and Recommendations for Patient Education. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2004; 54(5): 248–259.
8. Meijer CJLM, Berkhof J, Castle PE, et al. Guidelines for human papillomavirus DNA test requirements for primary cervical cancer screening in women 30 years and older, Snijders PJF. Int J Cancer 2009; 124 (3): 516–520.
9. Spaczyński M, Karowicz-Bilińska A, Nowak-Markwitz E, et al. Raport Centralnego Ośrodka Koordynującego: Podsumowanie realizacji populacyjnego programu profilaktyki i wykrywania raka szyjki macicy w ramach narodowego programu zwalczania chorób nowotworowych lata 2007–2010. Poznań 2010.
10. Rekomendacje kompleksowych zmian w obszarze profilaktyki raka szyjki macicy w Polsce: Polska Koalicja na Rzecz Walki z Rakiem Szyjki Macicy. http://koalicjarsm.pl/rekomendacje.html (access: 01.12.2013).
11. Ministerstwo Zdrowia Departament Polityki Lekowej i Farmacji. Informacja Ministerstwa Zdrowia na temat leczenia chorób onkologicznych. 05.01.2011. www.mz.gov.pl/wwwfiles/ma_struktura/ …/komunikat_pl_05012011 (access: 01.12.2013).
12. Wojciechowska U, Didkowska J, Zatoński W. Nowotwory złośliwe w Polsce w 2010 roku. Centrum Onkologii – Instytut im. M. Skłodowskiej-Curie, Warszawa 2012.
13. Spaczyński M, Karowicz-Bilińska A, Rokita W, Molińska-Glura M, Januszek-Michalecka L, Seroczyński P, Uchlik J, Nowak-Markwitz E. Attendance rate in the Polish Cervical Cancer Screening Program in the years 2007–2009. Gin Pol. 2010; 81: 655–663.
14. Wojtyniak B. Wybrane problemy zdrowotne. Umieralność kobiet 15–49 lat. In: Raport „Zdrowie kobiet w wieku prokreacyjnym 15–49 lat. Polska 2006.” Program Narodów Zjednoczonych ds. Rozwoju. Warszawa 2007; 32–33.
15. Sawaryn D, Wróbel A. Poziom wiedzy młodych dziewcząt na temat raka szyjki macicy. Medycyna Rodzinna 2011; 2: 35–42.
16. Chybicka A, Jackowska T, Dobrzańska A, Godycki-Ćwirko M, et al. Zalecenia grupy ekspertów dotyczące pierwotnej profilaktyki raka szyjki macicy u dziewcząt i młodych kobiet. Pediatria Polska 2010; 85(4): 359–369.
17. Adamska-Wełnicka A. Rak szyjki macicy – jak rozwiązać problem? Służba Zdrowia. 2011; 43 (50): 4044–4051.
eISSN:1898-2263
ISSN:1232-1966