To evaluate the association between human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer, we performed a population-based case-control study in Columbia and Spain, the former country having an incidence rate of cervical cancer about 8 times higher than the latter. It included 436 cases of histologically confirmed invasive cervical cancer and 387 randomly selected population controls. Information on demographic variables, sexual behaviour and other risk factors was obtained by interview. HPV-DNA was measured in cervical-swab specimens with 3 hybridization assays: ViraPap, Southern hybridization (SH) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The presence of HPV-DNA and detection of types 16, 18, 31, 33 and 35 were strongly associated with cervical cancer in each country regardless of the assay used. For both countries combined the adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were: ViraPap OR = 25.9 (10.0-66.7); SH OR = 6.8 (3.4-13.4); and PCR OR = 28.8 (15.7-52.6). HPV-16 was the most common type detected in both cases and controls. Our results indicate that there is a very strong association between HPV 16, 18, 31, 33 and 35 and invasive cervical cancer and that this association is probably causal.

New preventive strategies for cervical cancer will require the consideration of multiple HPV types.

As has been shown for squamous cell carcinoma, HPV is the central cause of adenocarcinoma/adenosquamous carcinoma of the uterine cervix. The observed associations of less prevalent HPV types with cervical cancer have important implications for cervical cancer prevention strategies.

A population-based case-control study of cervical cancer was conducted in Spain and Colombia to assess the relationship between cervical cancer and exposure to human papillomavirus (HPV), selected aspects of sexual and reproductive behaviour, use of oral contraceptives, screening practices and smoking. The study included 436 cases of histologically confirmed squamous-cell carcinoma and 387 age-stratified controls randomly selected from the general population that generated the cases. The presence of HPV DNA in cervical scrapes was assessed by PCR-based methods and was the strongest risk factor (OR = 23.8; 13.4-42.0). Risk estimates for any other factor were only slightly modified after adjusting for HPV status. Among women found positive for HPV DNA, only the use of oral contraceptives was a risk factor for cervical cancer (OR = 6.5; 1.3-31.4 for ever vs. never use). Patients with cervical cancer who were HPV DNA-negative retained most of the established epidemiological features of this disease. This suggests that some instances of HPV infection went undetected or that other sexually transmitted factor(s) contribute to the causation of cervical cancer. Early age at first intercourse (OR = 4.3; 2.1-9.0 for age < 16 vs. 24+) and early age at first birth (OR = 5.0; 1.8-14.2 for age < 16 vs. 24+) were associated with increased risk of cervical cancer; these effects were independent of one another. Low educational level was a risk factor (OR = 2.5; 1.6-3.9). Number of sexual partners was in our study a surrogate for HPV infection. Smoking and parity after age 24 were weakly and inconsistently associated with the risk of cervical cancer. Previous screening (OR = 0.7; 0.5-1.0) and ever having undergone a Caesarean section (OR = 0.4; 0.2-0.8) were protective factors.

Prompted by feedback from the 34th European Congress of Cytology (ECC), the practice of including a special symposium in the programme was continued in the 35th ECC in Lisbon (2009) by arranging a satellite symposium entitled 'Cervical Cancer Screening in the Mediterranean Countries'. Because of the importance to the future of this discipline, it was felt appropriate to summarize the highlights of this symposium here. Cervical cancer prevention strategies in the countries participating in the symposium (Portugal, Spain, Italy, Croatia, Greece and Turkey) appear to be highly variable. As yet, none of these countries can demonstrate a fully implemented national screening programme, but all are in different phases of designing and/or setting up such a programme, which is important. At present, the time-honoured concept of cervical cancer prevention by Pap smear screening is under review, because prophylactic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines demonstrate a potential to prevent the vast majority (albeit not all) of cases of cervical cancer in the foreseeable future. Cervical cancer screening is still needed in this emerging era of HPV vaccination, but clearly the existing screening strategies must be modified to provide a cost-effective combination of vaccination and screening. If the currently evaluated new screening strategies, such as HPV testing followed by cytology triage, become a reality, there is the likelihood that the Pap test will have only a secondary role, subordinate to HPV testing. Supporters of this scenario claim that Pap test performance will deteriorate in vaccinated populations. Reduced positive predictive value (PPV), due to lower disease prevalence, is inevitable, however, and this would also affect HPV tests. Any decline in sensitivity and specificity depends on human performance, and as such is avoidable by taking appropriate preventive measures. As clinical cytologists, we should focus attention on minimizing the risk to the Pap test of falling sensitivity because of unfamiliarity with abnormal cells, and also of reduced specificity if the fear of missing significant disease leads to overcalling of benign abnormalities.