Search

Background Women with mental illness experience an increased risk of cervical cancer. The excess risk is partly due to low participation in cervical screening; however, it remains unknown whether it is also attributable to an increased risk of infection with human papillomavirus (HPV). We aimed to examine whether women with mental illness had an increased infection rate of HPV compared to women without mental illness. Methods and findings Using a cohort design, we analyzed all 337,116 women aged 30 to 64 and living in Stockholm, who had a negative test result of 14 high-risk HPV subtypes in HPV-based screening, during August 2014 to December 2019. We defined women as exposed to mental illness if they had a specialist diagnosis of mental disorder or had a filled prescription of psychotropic medication. We identified incident infection of any high-risk HPV during follow-up and fitted multivariable Cox models to estimate hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for HPV infection. A total of 3,263 women were tested positive for high-risk HPV during follow-up (median: 2.21 years; range: 0 to 5.42 years). The absolute infection rate of HPV was higher among women with a specialist diagnosis of mental disorder (HR = 1.45; 95% CI [1.34, 1.57]; p < 0.001) or a filled prescription of psychotropic medication (HR = 1.67; 95% CI [1.55, 1.79]; p < 0.001), compared to women without such. The increment in absolute infection rate was noted for depression, anxiety, stress-related disorder, substance-related disorder, and ADHD, and for use of antidepressants, anxiolytics, sedatives, and hypnotics, and was consistent across age groups. The main limitations included selection of the female population in Stockholm as they must have at least 1 negative test result of HPV, and relatively short follow-up as HPV-based screening was only introduced in 2014 in Stockholm. Conclusions Mental illness is associated with an increased infection rate of high-risk HPV in women. Our findings motivate refined approaches to facilitate the WHO elimination agenda of cervical cancer among these marginalized women worldwide., Author(s): Eva Herweijer 1, Kejia Hu 1,*, Jiangrong Wang 2, Donghao Lu 1, Pär Sparén 3, Hans-Olov Adami 3,4, Unnur Valdimarsdóttir 1,5,6, Karin Sundström 2, Fang Fang 1,* Introduction Cervical [...]

Background Cervical screening programs use testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes. Different HPV types differ greatly in prevalence and oncogenicity. We estimated the impact of cervical screening and follow-up for each HPV type. Methods and findings For each type of HPV, we calculated the number of women needed to screen (NNS) and number of women needing follow-up (NNF) to detect or prevent one cervical cancer case, using the following individual level input data (i) screening and cancer data for all women aged 25 to 80 years, resident in Sweden during 2004 to 2011 (N = 3,568,938); (ii) HPV type-specific prevalences and screening histories among women with cervical cancer in Sweden in 2002 to 2011(N = 4,254); (iii) HPV 16/18/other HPV prevalences in the population-based HPV screening program (N = 656,607); and (iv) exact HPV genotyping in a population-based cohort (n = 12,527). Historical screening attendance was associated with a 72% reduction of cervical cancer incidence caused by HPV16 (71.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) [69.1%, 73.9%]) and a 54% reduction of cancer caused by HPV18 (53.8%, 95% CI [40.6%, 63.1%]). One case of HPV16-caused cervical cancer could be prevented for every 5,527 women attending screening (number needed to screen, NNS). Prevention of one case of HPV16-caused cervical cancer required follow-up of 147 HPV16-positive women (number needed to follow-up, NNF). The NNS and NNF were up to 40 to 500 times higher for HPV types commonly screened for with lower oncogenic potential (HPV35,39,51,56,59,66,68). For women below 30 years of age, NNS and NNF for HPV16 were 4,747 and 289, respectively, but >220,000 and >16,000 for HPV35,39,51,56,59,66,68. All estimates were either age-standarized or age-stratified. The primary limitation of our study is that NNS is dependent on the HPV prevalence that can differ between populations and over time. However, it can readily be recalculated in other settings and monitored when HPV type-specific prevalence changes. Other limitations include that in some age groups, there was little data and extrapolations had to be made. Finally, there were very few cervical cancer cases associated with certain HPV types in young age group. Conclusions In this study, we observed that the impact of cervical cancer screening varies depending on the HPV type screened for. Estimating and monitoring the impact of screening by HPV type can facilitate the design of effective and efficient HPV-based cervical screening programs. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov with numbers NCT00479375, NCT01511328., Author(s): Jiangrong Wang 1, K. Miriam Elfström 1,2, Camilla Lagheden 1, Carina Eklund 1, Karin Sundström 1, Pär Sparén 3, Joakim Dillner 1,2,* Introduction Elimination of cervical cancer as a [...]