3.8 Review

Barriers and Challenges to Treatment Alternatives for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer in Lower-Resource Settings

期刊

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL ONCOLOGY
卷 3, 期 5, 页码 572-582

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JGO.2016.007369

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [T32 CA009515] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cervical cancer is one of the most common cancers among women worldwide, and approximately 85% of new diagnoses occur in less-developed regions of the world. Global efforts in cervical cancer to date have focused on primary and secondary prevention strategies of human papillomavirus vaccination and cervical cancer screening. Cervical cancer screening is effective to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer and can result in diagnosis at earlier stages, but it will take time to realize its full impact. With expansion of screening programs, there is now a greater imperative to increase access to treatment for women who have cervical cancer, particularly in earlier stages of disease, when it is still curable. Resources for multi-modality treatment can be limited-or even absent-in many less-developed regions of the world and may be associated with geographic, social, and financial barriers for the patient. However, there is evidence that, in many cases, less-invasive and less-resource-intensive treatment options are still effective. To this end, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Society of Clinical Oncology have published guideline adaptations for specific resource constraints, and research about more conservative approaches to the treatment of cervical cancer continues. This review focuses on potential barriers and challenges to provision of safe and effective treatment of early-stage cervical cancer in lower-resource settings, and it suggests future directions for expansion of access to cervical cancer treatment around the world. (c) 2017 by American Society of Clinical Oncology Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据