Isakova D. B (1), Ismailova S. S. (2)
This work highlights recent advancements in the field of cervical cancer, focusing on three critical areas: prevention, early detection, and prognostic evaluation. Emphasis is placed on the implementation of HPV vaccination programs, novel biomarkers, and molecular screening techniques that enhance early recognition of precancerous changes. Advances in imaging technologies and liquid-based cytology are also discussed as key tools for improving diagnostic accuracy. Furthermore, the study explores modern prognostic models, including genomic profiling and AI-based risk stratification, which aid in predicting disease progression and tailoring individualized treatment plans. Together, these innovations represent a significant step forward in reducing the incidence and mortality associated with cervical cancer.
1. Sukhikh GT, Prilepskaya VN, ed. Prevention of cervical cancer: A guide for doctors. 3rd ed. Moscow: MEDpress-inform; 2018. 192p.
2. Stern P.L., G.S. Kitchener G.S., eds. Vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer: Per. from English Sukhikh G.T., Prilepskaya V.N., ed.M.: MEDpress-inform; 2019.192c
3. Rogovskaya S.I. Papillomavirus infection in women and pathology of the cervix: to help the practitioner. 2nd ed. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media; 2018. 192c
4. Bleotu C., Botezatu A., Goia C.D., Socolov D., Corniţescu F., Teleman S. et al. P16ink4A-A possible marker in HPV persistence screening. room. Arch. microbiol. Immunol. 2019; 68(3): 183–9.
5. 5.Davey E., Barratt A., Irwig L., Chan S.F., Macaskill P., Mannes P., Saville A.M. Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review. Lancet. 2016; 376(9505): 122–32.
6. 6 Franco E.L., Harper D.M. Vaccination against human papillomavirus infection: a new paradigm in cervical cancer control. Vaccine. 2015; 23(17–18): 2388–94.
7. Hutchcraft M. L. et al. Conization pathologic features as a predictor of intermediate and high risk features on radical hysterectomy specimens in early stage cervical cancer // Gynecologic oncology. - 2019. - T. 153. - No. 2. – P. 255-258.
8. Muñoz N., Bosch F.X., Castellsagué X., Díaz M., de Sanjose S., Hammouda D. et al. Against which human papillomavirus types shall we vaccinate and screen? The international perspective. Int. J. Cancer. 2020; 111(2): 278–85.
9. Nuovo J., Melnikow J., Howell L.P. New tests for cervical cancer screening. Am. fam. P hysician. 2011; 64:L780–6.
10. Pierry D., Weiss G., Lack B., Chen V., Fusco J. Intracellular human papillomavirus E6, E7 mRNA quantification predicts CIN 2+ in cervical biopsies better than Papanicolaou screening for women regardless of age. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2012; 136(8): 956–60.
11. Ramirez P., Frumovitz M., Pareja R. et.al. Phase III randomized trial of laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy vs. abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: LACC Trial. N Engl J Med 2018;379(20):1895–904.
12. Snijders P., van den Brule A., Meijer C. The clinical relevance of human papillomavirus testing: relationship between analytical and clinical sensitivity. J. Pathol. 2019; 201(1)
13. Kurman R.J., Carcangiu M.L., Harrington C.S. et al. (eds.) WHO Classification of Tumors of the Female Reproductive Organs. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press, 2018. World Health Organization Classification of Tumors. 4th edn.
14. Webb J.C., Key C.R., Qualls C.R. et al. Population-based study of microinvasive adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix. Obstet Gynecol 2018;97(5 Pt 1):701–6.