Search

Background: Dietary patterns, which represent whole-diet and possible food and nutrient interactions, have been linked to the risk of various cancers. However, the associations of these dietary patterns with breast cancer remain unclear. Objective: We critically appraised the literature and conducted meta-analyses to pool the results of studies to clarify the relation between dietary patterns and breast cancer risk. Design: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for relevant articles that identified common dietary patterns published up to November 2009. Multivariable-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) comparing highest and lowest categories of dietary pattern scores and multivariable-adjusted ORs for a 20th-percentile increase in dietary pattern scores were combined by using random-effects meta-analyses. Results: Case-control and cohort studies were retrieved that identified prudent/healthy (n = 18), Western/unhealthy (n = 17), and drinker (n = 4) dietary patterns. There was evidence of a decrease in the risk of breast cancer in the highest compared with the lowest categories of prudent/healthy dietary patterns (OR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.82, 0.99; P = 0.02) in all studies and in pooled cohort studies alone. An increase in the risk of breast cancer was shown for the highest compared with the lowest categories of a drinker dietary pattern (OR = 1.21; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.41; P = 0.01). There was no evidence of a difference in the risk of breast cancer between the highest and the lowest categories of Western/unhealthy dietary patterns (OR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.22; P = 0.12). Conclusion: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that some dietary patterns may be associated with breast cancer risk. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28796

There is growing interest in more risk‐based approaches to breast cancer screening in Australia. This would require more detailed reporting of BreastScreen data for factors of interest in the assessment and monitoring of risk‐based screening. This review assesses the current and potential availability and reporting of BreastScreen data for this purpose.

ABSTRACTWhile the benefits of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination relating to cervical cancer prevention have been widely documented, recent published evidence is suggestive of an impact on adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) in vaccinated mothers and their infants, including a reduction in rates of preterm births and small for gestational age infants. In this review, we examine this evidence and the possible mechanisms by which HPV vaccination may prevent these APOs. Large-scale studies linking HPV vaccination status with birth registries are needed to confirm these results. Potential confounding factors to consider in future analyses include other risk factors for APOs, and historical changes in both the management of cervical precancerous lesions and prevention of APOs. If confirmed, these additional benefits of HPV vaccination in reducing APO rates will be of global significance, due to the substantial health, social and economic costs associated with APOs, strengthening the case for worldwide HPV immunization.

Australia's cervical screening program transitioned from cytology to HPV-testing with genotyping for HPV16/18 in Dec’2017. We investigated whether program data could be used to monitor HPV vaccination program impact (commenced in 2007) on HPV16/18 prevalence and compared estimates with pre-vaccination benchmark prevalence. Pre-vaccination samples (2005–2008) (n = 1933; WHINURS), from 25 to 64-year-old women had been previously analysed with Linear Array (LA). Post-vaccination samples (2013-2014) (n = 2989; Compass pilot), from 25 to 64-year-old women, were analysed by cobas 4800 (cobas), and by LA for historical comparability. Age standardised pre-vaccination HPV16/18 prevalence was 4.85% (95%CI:3.81–5.89) by LA; post-vaccination estimates were 1.67% (95%CI:1.21–2.13%) by LA, 1.49% (95%CI:1.05–1.93%) by cobas, and 1.63% (95%CI:1.17–2.08%) for cobas and LA testing of non-16/18 cobas positives (cobas/LA). Age-standardised pre-vaccination oncogenic HPV prevalence was 15.70% (95%CI:13.79–17.60%) by LA; post-vaccination estimates were 9.06% (95%CI:8.02–10.09%) by LA, 8.47% (95%CI:7.47–9.47%) by cobas and cobas/LA. Standardised rate ratios between post-vs. pre-vaccination rates were significantly different for HPV16/18, non-16/18 HPV and oncogenic HPV: 0.34 (95%CI:0.23–0.50), 0.68 (95%CI:0.55–0.84) and 0.58 (95%CI:0.48–0.69), respectively. Additional strategies (LA for all cobas positives; combined cobas and LA results on all samples) had similar results. If a single method is applied consistently, it will provide important data on relative changes in HPV prevalence following vaccination.

Intense research activity in HPV modelling over this decade has prompted the development of additional guidelines to those for general modelling. A specific framework is required to address different policy questions and unique complexities of HPV modelling. HPV-FRAME is an initiative to develop a consensus statement and quality-based framework for epidemiologic and economic HPV models. Its development involved an established process. Reporting standards have been structured according to seven domains reflecting distinct policy questions in HPV and cancer prevention and categorised by relevance to a population or evaluation. Population-relevant domains are: 1) HPV vaccination in pre-adolescent and young adolescent individuals; 2) HPV vaccination in older individuals; 3) targeted vaccination in men who have sex with men; 4) considerations for individuals living with HIV and 5) considerations for low- and middle-income countries. Additional considerations applicable to specific evaluations are: 6) cervical screening or integrated cervical screening and HPV vaccination approaches and 7) alternative vaccine types and alternative dosing schedules. HPV-FRAME aims to promote the development of models in accordance with an explicit framework, to better enable target audiences to understand a model's strength and weaknesses in relation to a specific policy question and ultimately improve the model's contribution to informed decision-making.

This study demonstrates that the clinical sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of the novel cobas human papillomavirus (HPV) test on the cobas 6800 system for high-risk HPV types fulfills the criteria for use in population-based cervical screening. The criteria were formulated by an international consortium, using the cobas 4800 HPV test as a validated reference assay.