scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Mona Saraiya

Bio: Mona Saraiya is an academic researcher from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The author has contributed to research in topics: Cervical cancer & Population. The author has an hindex of 57, co-authored 247 publications receiving 15391 citations. Previous affiliations of Mona Saraiya include American Society for Clinical Pathology.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The global scale-up of HPV vaccination and HPV-based screening—including self-sampling—has potential to make cervical cancer a rare disease in the decades to come, and could help shape and monitor the initiative to eliminate cervical cancer as a major public health problem.

1,867 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: The first statement by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on the use of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was made by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on June 8, 2006 as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: These recommendations represent the first statement by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on the use of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on June 8, 2006. This report summarizes the epidemiology of HPV and associated diseases, describes the licensed HPV vaccine, and provides recommendations for its use for vaccination among females aged 9-26 years in the United States. Genital HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States; an estimated 6.2 million persons are newly infected every year. Although the majority of infections cause no clinical symptoms and are self-limited, persistent infection with oncogenic types can cause cervical cancer in women. HPV infection also is the cause of genital warts and is associated with other anogenital cancers. Cervical cancer rates have decreased in the United States because of widespread use of Papanicolaou testing, which can detect precancerous lesions of the cervix before they develop into cancer; nevertheless, during 2007, an estimated 11,100 new cases will be diagnosed and approximately 3,700 women will die from cervical cancer. In certain countries where cervical cancer screening is not routine, cervical cancer is a common cancer in women. The licensed HPV vaccine is composed of the HPV L1 protein, the major capsid protein of HPV. Expression of the L1 protein in yeast using recombinant DNA technology produces noninfectious virus-like particles (VLP) that resemble HPV virions. The quadrivalent HPV vaccine is a mixture of four HPV type-specific VLPs prepared from the L1 proteins of HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 combined with an aluminum adjuvant. Clinical trials indicate that the vaccine has high efficacy in preventing persistent HPV infection, cervical cancer precursor lesions, vaginal and vulvar cancer precursor lesions, and genital warts caused by HPV types 6, 11, 16, or 18 among females who have not already been infected with the respective HPV type. No evidence exists of protection against disease caused by HPV types with which females are infected at the time of vaccination. However, females infected with one or more vaccine HPV types before vaccination would be protected against disease caused by the other vaccine HPV types. The vaccine is administered by intramuscular injection, and the recommended schedule is a 3-dose series with the second and third doses administered 2 and 6 months after the first dose. The recommended age for vaccination of females is 11-12 years. Vaccine can be administered as young as age 9 years. Catch-up vaccination is recommended for females aged 13--26 years who have not been previously vaccinated. Vaccination is not a substitute for routine cervical cancer screening, and vaccinated females should have cervical cancer screening as recommended.

1,545 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In spite of effective screening methods, cervical cancer continues to be a major public health problem and new methodologies of cervical cancer prevention should be made available and accessible for women of all countries through well-organised programmes.

970 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: Evidence considered by ACIP in recommending 9vHPV as one of three HPV vaccines that can be used for vaccination is summarized and recommendations for vaccine use are provided.
Abstract: During its February 2015 meeting, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended 9-valent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (9vHPV) (Gardasil 9, Merck and Co., Inc.) as one of three HPV vaccines that can be used for routine vaccination. HPV vaccine is recommended for routine vaccination at age 11 or 12 years. ACIP also recommends vaccination for females aged 13 through 26 years and males aged 13 through 21 years not vaccinated previously. Vaccination is also recommended through age 26 years for men who have sex with men and for immunocompromised persons (including those with HIV infection) if not vaccinated previously. 9vHPV is a noninfectious, virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine. Similar to quadrivalent HPV vaccine (4vHPV), 9vHPV contains HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 VLPs. In addition, 9vHPV contains HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 VLPs. 9vHPV was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on December 10, 2014, for use in females aged 9 through 26 years and males aged 9 through 15 years. For these recommendations, ACIP reviewed additional data on 9vHPV in males aged 16 through 26 years. 9vHPV and 4vHPV are licensed for use in females and males. Bivalent HPV vaccine (2vHPV), which contains HPV 16, 18 VLPs, is licensed for use in females. This report summarizes evidence considered by ACIP in recommending 9vHPV as one of three HPV vaccines that can be used for vaccination and provides recommendations for vaccine use.

911 citations

29 Aug 2014
TL;DR: This report summarizes the epidemiology of human papillomavirus (HPV) and associated diseases, describes the licensed HPV vaccines, provides updated data from clinical trials and postlicensure safety studies, and compiles recommendations from CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for use of HPV vaccines.
Abstract: This report summarizes the epidemiology of human papillomavirus (HPV) and associated diseases, describes the licensed HPV vaccines, provides updated data from clinical trials and postlicensure safety studies, and compiles recommendations from CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for use of HPV vaccines. Persistent infection with oncogenic HPV types can cause cervical cancer in women as well as other anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers in women and men. HPV also causes genital warts. Two HPV vaccines are licensed in the United States. Both are composed of type-specific HPV L1 protein, the major capsid protein of HPV. Expression of the L1 protein using recombinant DNA technology produces noninfectious virus-like particles (VLPs). Quadrivalent HPV vaccine (HPV4) contains four HPV type-specific VLPs prepared from the L1 proteins of HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18. Bivalent HPV vaccine (HPV2) contains two HPV type-specific VLPs prepared from the L1 proteins of HPV 16 and 18. Both vaccines are administered in a 3-dose series. ACIP recommends routine vaccination with HPV4 or HPV2 for females aged 11 or 12 years and with HPV4 for males aged 11 or 12 years. Vaccination also is recommended for females aged 13 through 26 years and for males aged 13 through 21 years who were not vaccinated previously. Males aged 22 through 26 years may be vaccinated. ACIP recommends vaccination of men who have sex with men and immunocompromised persons (including those with HIV infection) through age 26 years if not previously vaccinated. As a compendium of all current recommendations for use of HPV vaccines, information in this report is intended for use by clinicians, vaccination providers, public health officials, and immunization program personnel as a resource. ACIP recommendations are reviewed periodically and are revised as indicated when new information and data become available.

777 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The overall cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2016 by a total of 27%, translating into approximately 2,629,200 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak.
Abstract: Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival. Incidence data, available through 2015, were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data, available through 2016, were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2019, 1,762,450 new cancer cases and 606,880 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Over the past decade of data, the cancer incidence rate (2006-2015) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% per year in men, whereas the cancer death rate (2007-2016) declined annually by 1.4% and 1.8%, respectively. The overall cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2016 by a total of 27%, translating into approximately 2,629,200 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak. Although the racial gap in cancer mortality is slowly narrowing, socioeconomic inequalities are widening, with the most notable gaps for the most preventable cancers. For example, compared with the most affluent counties, mortality rates in the poorest counties were 2-fold higher for cervical cancer and 40% higher for male lung and liver cancers during 2012-2016. Some states are home to both the wealthiest and the poorest counties, suggesting the opportunity for more equitable dissemination of effective cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment strategies. A broader application of existing cancer control knowledge with an emphasis on disadvantaged groups would undoubtedly accelerate progress against cancer.

16,028 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The combined cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2015 by a total of 26%, translating to approximately 2,378,600 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak.
Abstract: Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival. Incidence data, available through 2014, were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data, available through 2015, were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, 1,735,350 new cancer cases and 609,640 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Over the past decade of data, the cancer incidence rate (2005-2014) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% annually in men, while the cancer death rate (2006-2015) declined by about 1.5% annually in both men and women. The combined cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2015 by a total of 26%, translating to approximately 2,378,600 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak. Of the 10 leading causes of death, only cancer declined from 2014 to 2015. In 2015, the cancer death rate was 14% higher in non-Hispanic blacks (NHBs) than non-Hispanic whites (NHWs) overall (death rate ratio [DRR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.13-1.15), but the racial disparity was much larger for individuals aged <65 years (DRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.29-1.32) compared with those aged ≥65 years (DRR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09) and varied substantially by state. For example, the cancer death rate was lower in NHBs than NHWs in Massachusetts for all ages and in New York for individuals aged ≥65 years, whereas for those aged <65 years, it was 3 times higher in NHBs in the District of Columbia (DRR, 2.89; 95% CI, 2.16-3.91) and about 50% higher in Wisconsin (DRR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.56-2.02), Kansas (DRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.25-1.81), Louisiana (DRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.60), Illinois (DRR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.39-1.57), and California (DRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.38-1.54). Larger racial inequalities in young and middle-aged adults probably partly reflect less access to high-quality health care. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:7-30. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

14,011 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Many of the estimated cancer cases and deaths can be prevented through reducing the prevalence of risk factors, while increasing the effectiveness of clinical care delivery, particularly for those living in rural areas and in disadvantaged populations.
Abstract: With increasing incidence and mortality, cancer is the leading cause of death in China and is a major public health problem. Because of China's massive population (1.37 billion), previous national incidence and mortality estimates have been limited to small samples of the population using data from the 1990s or based on a specific year. With high-quality data from an additional number of population-based registries now available through the National Central Cancer Registry of China, the authors analyzed data from 72 local, population-based cancer registries (2009-2011), representing 6.5% of the population, to estimate the number of new cases and cancer deaths for 2015. Data from 22 registries were used for trend analyses (2000-2011). The results indicated that an estimated 4292,000 new cancer cases and 2814,000 cancer deaths would occur in China in 2015, with lung cancer being the most common incident cancer and the leading cause of cancer death. Stomach, esophageal, and liver cancers were also commonly diagnosed and were identified as leading causes of cancer death. Residents of rural areas had significantly higher age-standardized (Segi population) incidence and mortality rates for all cancers combined than urban residents (213.6 per 100,000 vs 191.5 per 100,000 for incidence; 149.0 per 100,000 vs 109.5 per 100,000 for mortality, respectively). For all cancers combined, the incidence rates were stable during 2000 through 2011 for males (+0.2% per year; P = .1), whereas they increased significantly (+2.2% per year; P < .05) among females. In contrast, the mortality rates since 2006 have decreased significantly for both males (-1.4% per year; P < .05) and females (-1.1% per year; P < .05). Many of the estimated cancer cases and deaths can be prevented through reducing the prevalence of risk factors, while increasing the effectiveness of clinical care delivery, particularly for those living in rural areas and in disadvantaged populations.

13,073 citations

01 Feb 2009
TL;DR: This Secret History documentary follows experts as they pick through the evidence and reveal why the plague killed on such a scale, and what might be coming next.
Abstract: Secret History: Return of the Black Death Channel 4, 7-8pm In 1348 the Black Death swept through London, killing people within days of the appearance of their first symptoms. Exactly how many died, and why, has long been a mystery. This Secret History documentary follows experts as they pick through the evidence and reveal why the plague killed on such a scale. And they ask, what might be coming next?

5,234 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication, and those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.
Abstract: Background Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty. Objectives To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions. Search methods For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008). Selection criteria We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were: A) 'choice made' attributes; B) 'decision-making process' attributes. Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model. Main results This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each. Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies). A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes: Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13). B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes: Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18); b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18). Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice. C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable. The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive. Authors' conclusions There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values. New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

5,042 citations