Open Access

Familial Cervical Cancer: Case Reports, Review and Clinical Implications

  • Margreet Zoodsma1,
  • Rolf H Sijmons2,
  • Elisabeth GE de Vries3 and
  • Ate GJ van der Zee1Email author
Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice20042:99

DOI: 10.1186/1897-4287-2-2-99

Received: 14 May 2004

Accepted: 15 May 2004

Published: 18 May 2004

Abstract

We report three Dutch families with familial clustering of (pre)neoplastic cervical disease, review the literature on familial risks of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cervical cancer, and discuss possible practical guidelines for women with a family history of cervical cancer. Daughters and sisters of women with cervical cancer have been reported to have a relative risk of 1.5-2.3 to develop this type of cancer. From a practical clinical point of view, we suggest that as in women with an increased non-genetic risk to develop cervical cancer (e.g. because of immunosuppressive therapy) increased surveillance to detect this tumour should be considered in women with an increased risk based on family history. Cessation of smoking should be advised. As the use of condoms at least prevents HPV re-infection its use can be recommended as a way to lower the cervical cancer risk. Future studies to determine the genetic contribution to the development of cervical cancer should include the paternal family history of cancer and, because genetic predisposition might express itself as a higher risk to develop precursors of cervical cancer, carcinoma in situ and CIN grade II-III.

Keywords

cervical cancer familial family history risk screening

Introduction

Infection with oncogenic types of human papilloma virus (HPV) is regarded as the main causal factor of cervical cancer [1]. There is evidence to suggest that genetic factors affecting an individual's susceptibility to HPV infection may influence the risk to develop cervical cancer [2]. However, the genes involved and mutations or variants in those genes remain to be fully established [3]. As in other cancers, genetic susceptibility might manifest as familial clustering of cervical cancer. Although cervical cancer is the third most common cancer in women worldwide [4], reports on familial cases of cervical cancer, on calculated tumour risks for relatives and, even more so, on its clinical implications are relatively rare. Due to the national screening programme cervical cancer is not a common disease in the Netherlands [5, 6], and no reports have been published on familial clustering of cervical cancer in Dutch patients.

In this paper we report three Dutch families with multiple cases of cervical cancer and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), we review the literature on familial occurrence of cervical (pre)neoplastic disease and discuss present and possible future practical clinical implications.

Case reports

Recently members of three non-related families (pedigrees shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3, respectively) were referred to our clinic with questions regarding the possible hereditary nature of cervical cancer in their families and possible preventive options. Because family histories of cancer may be inaccurate [7], we verified the cervical cancer cases whenever possible.
Figure 1

Family 1. Pedigrees of the three families with three or four women with CIN or cervical cancer. Diagnosis or cause of death and age of diagnosis or death are mentioned in the figure. = individual referred for genetic counselling black symbols = diagnosis confirmed by medical records grey symbols = medical records unavailable hatched symbols = non-cervical cancer reported by family numbers in the symbols = number of individuals. CC = cervical cancer, SCC = squamous cervical cancer, ACC = adenocarcinoma of the cervix, ASC = adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix, CCC = clear cell carcinoma of the cervix, CIS = cervical cancer in situ, CIN = cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, DM = diabetes mellitus, CVA = cerebro-vascular accident, ? = unknown medical history

Figure 2

Family 2. Pedigrees of the three families with three or four women with CIN or cervical cancer. Diagnosis or cause of death and age of diagnosis or death are mentioned in the figure. = individual referred for genetic counselling black symbols = diagnosis confirmed by medical records grey symbols = medical records unavailable hatched symbols = non-cervical cancer reported by family numbers in the symbols = number of individuals. CC = cervical cancer, SCC = squamous cervical cancer, ACC = adenocarcinoma of the cervix, ASC = adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix, CCC = clear cell carcinoma of the cervix, CIS = cervical cancer in situ, CIN = cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, DM = diabetes mellitus, CVA = cerebro-vascular accident, ? = unknown medical history

Figure 3

Family 3. Pedigrees of the three families with three or four women with CIN or cervical cancer. Diagnosis or cause of death and age of diagnosis or death are mentioned in the figure. = individual referred for genetic counselling black symbols = diagnosis confirmed by medical records grey symbols = medical records unavailable hatched symbols = non-cervical cancer reported by family numbers in the symbols = number of individuals. CC = cervical cancer, SCC = squamous cervical cancer, ACC = adenocarcinoma of the cervix, ASC = adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix, CCC = clear cell carcinoma of the cervix, CIS = cervical cancer in situ, CIN = cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, DM = diabetes mellitus, CVA = cerebro-vascular accident, ? = unknown medical history

In family 1, the index-patient (IV-3) was diagnosed with a clear cell carcinoma of the cervix, FIGO stage Ib1 at the age of 24. No diethylstilbestrol (DES)-use by the mother was reported. The maternal great-grandmother (I-1) was reported by the family to have been diagnosed with cervical cancer before the age of 50. The maternal grandmother (II-5) had been diagnosed with adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix and had died at the age of 46. The paternal aunt (III-6) had been diagnosed with squamous carcinoma in situ (CIS) of the cervix at the age of 35, which was treated with a conization. The diagnoses in IV-3, II-5 and III-6 could be confirmed by checking the medical records. The medical records of I-1 were no longer available. No cervical cancer occurred in the family of III-3. The question on referral was what advice should be given to young girls of 16 and 15 years of age (IV-4 and IV-5, respectively).

In family 2, the proband (III-7) was referred because three of her sisters (III-1, 5 and 9) had been diagnosed with cervical cancer or CIN, all confirmed by medical records. They were under the impression that their mother (II-6) had been diagnosed with cervical cancer as well. However, checking medical records revealed that she had been diagnosed with hyperplasia of the endometrium instead.

In family 3, three cases of cervical cancer or CIS, all squamous cell carcinoma, confirmed by medical recorts occurred in two generations (II-1, III-3 and 8). The medical history of two half-sisters (III-1 and 2) was unknown.

HPV status was unknown in families 1, 2 and 3 and the patterns of non-cervical cancer types reported in these families were not suggestive of any known hereditary cancer syndrome.

Review and discussion

Familial clustering of cervical cancer might be coincidental, the result of shared exogenic risk factors, shared genetic risk factors or a combination of these factors. HPV is an established exogenic risk factor for cervical cancer and CIN [8]. Others might be smoking and use of oral contraceptives [911]. All these risk factors may well be shared within families because of possible shared lifestyles. Presently there is neither indication that cervical cancer which presents in familial clusters develops at a significantly earlier age [12] than sporadic cervical cancer (considered to be a hallmark of hereditary cancer) nor that its clinical behaviour differs from that of sporadic cervical cancer. The heritability of cervical cancer has been estimated between 22% and 46% [1214]. As publications on cases of familial clustering of cervical cancer are relatively rare, more data are needed to arrive at more precise estimations [1517]. Reported figures on familial cervical cancer in situ (CIS) and cervical cancer are summarized in Table 1. Apart from three studies (the study by Brinton et al [18], who investigated the family history of women with cervical cancer in a North American population, the study by Fischer et al [19] in a German population and Furgyik et al [20] in a Swedish population), all other available studies used the Swedish national cancer registers. Not surprisingly the results of the Swedish studies are similar, although different methods to investigate familial risks were used and results were expressed in different types of risk units [1214, 21, 22]. In these studies, a (familial) relative risk of about 1.5-2.3 for CIS and/or cervical cancer for first degree relatives of affected women was reported, although some histological subtypes might be associated with a higher risk. Only one study included patients with severe dysplasia (CIN III) of the cervix [21]. Because CIN III and II are considered to be the precursors of cervical cancer [23, 24], a genetic predisposition to cervical cancer might manifest itself as not only cervical cancer and CIS, but also as CIN II and III. Familial clustering of CIN II and III as well as CIS and cervical cancer might therefore be expected to occur, as shown in our family 2. Therefore, it would be logical to include CIN II and III in the analysis of familial cervical cancer risk, although CIN will not be readily observed in populations without cervical cancer screening.
Table 1

Reported familial risks and heritability of cervical cancer

Author

Type of study

Number of patients

Number of controls

Risk for first degree relative to develop CIN/CIS/CC

Comments

Heritability (%)

Furgyik

et al. [20]

case-control

relatives of 180 CIS/CC patients

relatives of 105

male consorts

7.9% vs. 1.1% (p < 0.01)

7.5% vs. 1.0% (p < 0.01)

15.6%

% of mothers with CIS/CC

% of sisters with CIS/CC

% of mothers and/or sisters with CIS/CC

 

Brinton

et al. [18]

case-control

418 SCC patients

23 ASC patients

40 AC patients

801 healthy women

OR = 3.1 (p <0.05)

OR = 9.9 (p <0.05)

OR = 2.49 (N.S.)

family history of CC in patients vs. controls

 

Ahlbom

et al. [13]

longitudinal

cohort study

twin study

263 MZ twins

395 DZ twins

MZ vs. DZ

-

-

RR = 4.8 (95% CI 3.0-7.6)

RR = 2.4 (95% CI 1.5-3.8)

RR = 2.0 (95% CI 1.1-3.5)

risk for twin sister to develop CIS

risk for twin sister to develop CIS

comparing MZ and DZ twins

39-46%

Hemminki

et al. [12]

longitudinal

cohort study

relatives of 125,569

CIS patients

relatives of 13,982

CC patients

relatives of 3,901,140

healthy women

FRR = 1.79 (95% CI 1.75-1.84)

FRR = 2.30 (95% CI 1.66-2.93)

risk for daughters of patients vs. daughters of healthy women to develop CIS

risk for daughters of patients vs. daughters of healthy women to develop CC

11-15% (CIS)

22-34% (CC)

Magnusson

et al. [21]

nested

case-control

study

in cohort study

relatives of 71,533

CIN/CIS/CC patients

relatives of 194,810

healthy women

FRR = 1.83 (95% CI 1.77-1.88)

vs. FRR = 1.10 (95% CI 0.76-1.54)

FRR = 1.93 (95% CI 1.85-2.01)

vs. FRR = 1.15 (95% CI 0.82-1.57)

FRR = 1.45 (95% CI 1.31-1.60)

risk for biologic vs. adoptive mothers

risk for biologic vs. adoptive sisters

risk for half-sisters (same mother or same father)

-

Magnusson

et al. [14]

longitudinal

cohort study

relatives of 65,685

CIN/CIS/CC patients

relatives of 189,635

healthy women

-

-

27%

Hemminki

et al. [22]

longitudinal

cohort study

relatives of 191,081

CIS patients

relatives of 21,727

CC patients

relatives of 5,935,132

healthy women

RR = 1.51-1.77 (95% CI 1.33-2.10)

RR = 1.73-2.12 (95% CI 1.37-3.17)

risk for relatives of patients

vs. relatives of healthy women

 

Fischer et al. [19]

Longitudinal cohort study

relatives of 893 CC patients

-

6.9%

% of relatives with CC

 

OR = odds ratio

RR = relative risk = the risk of cases compared with the risk of control

FRR = familial relative risk = the risk to the relatives of cases divided by the risk to the relatives of controls

Heritability = the proportion of total variance due to genetic variance

MZ = monozygotic

DZ = dizygotic

CIN = cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia

CIS = carcinoma in situ

CC = cervical cancer

SCC = squamous cell carcinoma

ASC = adenosquamous carcinoma

AC = adenocarcinoma

So far, familial cervical cancer risk has been investigated in mother-daughter and sister-sister relationships only, but the pedigree of family 1 might suggest a paternally inherited genetic susceptibility for (pre)neoplastic cervical disease. Future studies should include the history of (cervical) cancer in the paternal branch of the family, as ignoring the possibility of paternally transmitted genetic susceptibility will underestimate the genetic contribution to cervical cancer risk.

The familial risks reported so far are in the same order of magnitude as the familial relative risks (FRRs) found in cancers with an identified hereditary component such as breast, ovarian and colon cancer [12]. In contrast to these tumour types, there is no evidence yet for the existence of a highly penetrant cervical cancer predisposition gene.

To identify candidate genes associated with genetic susceptibility to cervical cancer, genes currently under investigation are the HLA genes and other genes that are involved in cell-mediated immunity like IL-10, Tp53 and genes involved in the detoxification of carcinogens found in tobacco smoke [2, 3, 2530]. The products of most of these genes are known to interact with the exogenic agents mentioned earlier. No definitive conclusion about genetic predisposition in familial clusters of cervical cancer, including those that we have reported, will be possible before genes responsible for such predisposition have been convincingly identified.

What medical advice should we give to women with a family history of cervical cancer and/or its precursor lesions? For practical purposes, and based on current literature, close female relatives of the affected women in the families we have reported and similar ones can be presumed to have a moderately increased risk to develop cervical cancer. This raises the issue of possible primary and secondary preventive options. In these women, adherence to screening programmes and reducing exposure to known exogenic risk factors might therefore be especially important. As HPV is the main causal factor for developing cervical cancer and this virus is spread mainly through sexual contact, use of condoms might be advisable, since the use of condoms at least prevents HPV re-infection and thus can be a way to lower cervical cancer risk [31]. Another well-studied risk factor for CIN and cervical cancer is smoking [3234]. Smoking has been suggested to be a confounding effect caused by the association of smoking with a lifestyle with an increased risk of HPV infection [35], but in other studies, adjusted for HPV, smoking appeared to be an independent risk factor [34]. Szarewski et al [36] reported that smoking cessation facilitated regression of CIN lesions. Thus, smoking cessation should be advised, particularly in women at an increased risk for cervical cancer.

Recently new guidelines for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer were published by the American Cancer Society (ACS) [37]. These recommendations include more frequent cervical screening for women who have been reported to be at a higher risk for cervical cancer, because they are either immunocompromised (by organ transplantation, chemotherapy or chronic corticosteroid treatment) or have a history of in utero exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES). Interestingly, no recommendations were included for women with a positive family history of CIN or cervical cancer although the relative risk for cervical cancer due to DES exposure [38] is comparable to that for cervical cancer due to familial clustering. Similar relative risks have lead to recommendations for increased surveillance in women with a family history of cancer of the breast, ovaries or colon. Taken together, it appears to be consistent to consider a more intensive screening policy for women with a family history of cervical cancer as well. In our opinion, this screening could follow the ACS guidelines for other groups of women with an increased cervical cancer risk, in particular those listed for women with a history of in utero exposure to DES (Table 2), until more data become available. However, whether this annual screening should continue beyond the age of 70 (ACS does not mention a fixed upper age limit for the DES-exposed group) is questionable. As in other familial cancer screening programmes, the benefits and costs (physical, psychological and economic) of increased surveillance in women with a family history of cervical cancer would need to be established and this surveillance should therefore be monitored in a research setting.
Table 2

Summary of the American Cancer Society guidelines on screening for cervical cancer [37]

 

Start screening

Interval

Stop screening

General population

3 years after onset of vaginal intercourse, but do not start screening later than at 21 years of age

Annually; change interval to every 2 to 3 years in women older than 29 years of age who have had 3 consecutive negative cytology results

70 years of age

Women who are immunocompromised1

Start as in general population

Screen twice in the first year after diagnosis2; annually thereafter

Continue screening as long as patients are in reasonably good health

Women with a history of in utero exposure to DES

Start as in general population

Annually

Continue screening as long as patients are in reasonably good health

1including HIV+

2diagnosis of condition associated with compromised immune system or start of immunocompromising therapy, respectively

When in the future genetic predisposition to cervical cancer can be identified at a molecular level, presymptomatic genetic testing will become an option. The identification of such predisposition might stimulate compliance to screening programmes, or, in regions without population screening, it might make cervical cancer screening available to the women involved. Moreover, when genetic susceptibility indeed turns out to act through a decreased host response to HPV infection, then women with this particular susceptibility might be good candidates for prophylactic HPV vaccination [39].

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Gynaecology, Groningen University Hospital
(2)
Department of Clinical Genetics, Groningen University Hospital
(3)
Department of Medical Oncology, Groningen University Hospital
(4)
Department of Gynaecology, Groningen University Hospital

References

  1. Munoz N, Bosch FX, de Sanjose S, Herrero R, Castellsague X, Shah KV, Snijders PJ, Meijer CJ, International Agency for Research on Cancer Multicenter Cervical Cancer Study Group: Epidemiologic classification of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2003,348(6):518–527. 10.1056/NEJMoa021641View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Breitburd F, Ramoz N, Salmon J, Orth G: HLA control in the progression of human papillomavirus infections. Semin Cancer Biol 1996,7(6):359–371. 10.1006/scbi.1996.0045View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Odunsi KO, Ganesan TS: The roles of the human major histocompatibility complex and human papillomavirus infection in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 1997,9(1):4–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Parkin DM, Pisani P, Ferlay J: Estimates of the worldwide incidence of 25 major cancers in 1990. Int J Cancer 1999,80(6):827–841. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19990315)80:6<827::AID-IJC6>3.0.CO;2-PView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Visser O, Coebergh JWW, Schouten LJ, van Dijck JAAM: Incidence of cancer in the Netherlands 1995. Utrecht 1997.Google Scholar
  6. Van Ballegooijen M, Hermens R: Cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands. Eur J Cancer 2000, 36: 2244–2246. 10.1016/S0959-8049(00)00317-8View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Sijmons RH, Boonstra AE, Reefhuis J, Hordijk-Hos JM, de Walle HE, Oosterwijk JC, Cornel MC: Accuracy of family history of cancer: clinical genetic implications. Eur J Hum Genet 2000,8(3):181–186. 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5200441View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, Bosch FX, Kummer JA, Shah KV, Snijders PJ, Peto J, Meijer CJ, Munoz N: Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999,189(1):12–19. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(199909)189:1<12::AID-PATH431>3.0.CO;2-FView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Mitchell MF, Tortolero-Luna G, Wright T, Sarkar A, Richards-Kortum R, Hong WK, Schottenfeld D: Cervical human papillomavirus infection and intraepithelial neoplasia: a review. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1996, (21):17–25.Google Scholar
  10. Koutsky L: Epidemiology of genital human papillomavirus infection. Am J Med 1997,102(5A):3–8. 10.1016/S0002-9343(97)00177-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Moreno V, Bosch FX, Munoz N, Meijer CJ, Shah KV, Walboomers JM, Herrero R, Franceschi S, International Agency for Research on Cancer: Multicentric Cervical Cancer Study Group. Effect of oral contraceptives on risk of cervical cancer in women with human papillomavirus infection: the IARC multicentric case-control study. Lancet 2002,359(9312):1085–1092. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08150-3View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hemminki K, Dong C, Vaittinen P: Familial risks in cervical cancer: is there a hereditary component? Int J Cancer 1999,82(6):775–781. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19990909)82:6<775::AID-IJC1>3.0.CO;2-VView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ahlbom A, Lichtenstein P, Malmstrom H, Feychting M, Hemminki K, Pedersen NL: Cancer in twins: genetic and nongenetic familial risk factors. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997,89(4):287–293. 10.1093/jnci/89.4.287View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Magnusson PK, Lichtenstein P, Gyllensten UB: Heritability of cervical tumours. Int J Cancer 2000,88(5):698–701. 10.1002/1097-0215(20001201)88:5<698::AID-IJC3>3.0.CO;2-JView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Andrews FJ, Linehan JJ, Melcher DH: Cervical carcinoma in both mother and daughter. Acta Cytol 1981,25(1):3–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Bender S: Carcinoma in-situ of cervix in sisters. Br Med J 1976,1(6008):502. 10.1136/bmj.1.6008.502PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Bruinse HW, te Velde ER, de Gast BC: Human leukocyte antigen patterns in a family with cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1981,12(2 Pt 1):249–252. 10.1016/0090-8258(81)90154-2View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Brinton LA, Tashima KT, Lehman HF, Levine RS, Mallin K, Savitz DA, Stolley PD, Fraumeni JF Jr: Epidemiology of cervical cancer by cell type. Cancer Res 1987,47(6):1706–1711.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer U, Raptis G, Horn LC: Significance of family anamnesis in cervix carcinoma. Zentralbl Gynakol 2001,123(5):302–307. 10.1055/s-2001-14791View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Furgyik S, Grubb R, Kullander S, Sandahl B, Wingerup L, Eydal A: Familial occurrence of cervical cancer, stages 0-IV. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1986,65(3):223–227. 10.3109/00016348609155175View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Magnusson PK, Sparen P, Gyllensten UB: Genetic link to cervical tumours. Nature 1999,400(6739):29–30. 10.1038/21801View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hemminki K, Li X, Mutanen P: Familial risks in invasive and in situ cervical cancer by histological type. Eur J Cancer Prev 2001,10(1):83–89. 10.1097/00008469-200102000-00010View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kiviat N: Natural history of cervical neoplasia: overview and update. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996,175(4 Pt 2):1099–1104. 10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70011-XView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Pinto AP, Crum CP: Natural history of cervical neoplasia: defining progression and its consequence. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2000,43(2):352–362. 10.1097/00003081-200006000-00015View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Storey A, Thomas M, Kalita A, Harwood C, Gardiol D, Mantovani F, Breuer J, Leigh IM, Matlashewski G, Banks L: Role of a p53 polymorphism in the development of human papillomavirus-associated cancer. Nature 1998,393(6682):229–234. 10.1038/30400View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Stanczuk GA, Sibanda EN, Perrey C, Chirara M, Pravica V, Hutchinson IV, Tswana SA: Cancer of the uterine cervix may be significantly associated with a gene polymorphism coding for increased IL-10 production. Int J Cancer 2001,94(6):792–794. 10.1002/ijc.1543View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Warwick A, Sarhanis P, Redman C, Pemble S, Taylor JB, Ketterer B, Jones P, Alldersea J, Gilford J, Yengi L, Fryer A, Strange RC: Theta class glutathione S-transferase GSTT1 genotypes and susceptibility to cervical neoplasia: interactions with GSTM1, CYP2D6 and smoking. Carcinogenesis 1994,15(12):2841–2845. 10.1093/carcin/15.12.2841View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Warwick AP, Redman CW, Jones PW, Fryer AA, Gilford J, Alldersea J, Strange RC: Progression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia to cervical cancer: interactions of cytochrome P450 CYP2D6 EM and glutathione s-transferase GSTM1 null genotypes and cigarette smoking. Br J Cancer 1994,70(4):704–708.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Chen C, Madeleine MM, Weiss NS, Daling JR: Glutathione S-transferase M1 genotypes and the risk of squamous carcinoma of the cervix: a population-based case-control study. Am J Epidemiol 1999,150(6):568–572.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Goodman MT, McDuffie K, Hernandez B, Bertram CC, Wilkens LR, Guo C, Seifried A, Killeen J, Le Marchand L: CYP1A1, GSTM1, and GSTT1 polymorphisms and the risk of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions in a multiethnic population. Gynecol Oncol 2001,81(2):263–269. 10.1006/gyno.2001.6154View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hogewoning CJ, Bleeker MC, Brule AJ, Voorhorst FJ, Snijders PJ, Berkhof J, Westenend PJ, Meijer CJ: Condom use promotes regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and clearance of human papillomavirus: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Cancer 2003,107(5):811–816. 10.1002/ijc.11474View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Winkelstein W Jr: Smoking and cervical cancer - current status: a review. Am J Epidemiol 1990,131(6):945–957.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Daling JR, Madeleine MM, McKnight B, Carter JJ, Wipf GC, Ashley R, Schwartz SM, Beckmann AM, Hagensee ME, Mandelson MT, Galloway DA: The relationship of human papillomavirus-related cervical tumors to cigarette smoking, oral contraceptive use, and prior herpes simplex virus type 2 infection. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1996,5(7):541–548.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kjellberg L, Hallmans G, Ahren AM, Johansson R, Bergman F, Wadell G, Angstrom T, Dillner J: Smoking, diet, pregnancy and oral contraceptive use as risk factors for cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia in relation to human papillomavirus infection. Br J Cancer 2000,82(7):1332–1338. 10.1054/bjoc.1999.1100PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ho L, Terry G, Mansell B, Butler B, Singer A: Detection of DNA and E7 transcripts of human papillomavirus types 16, 18, 31 and 33, TGF beta and GM-CSF transcripts in cervical cancers and precancers. Arch Virol 1994,139(1–2):79–85. 10.1007/BF01309455View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Szarewski A, Jarvis MJ, Sasieni P, Anderson M, Edwards R, Steele SJ, Guillebaud J, Cuzick J: Effect of smoking cessation on cervical lesion size. Lancet 1996,347(9006):941–943. 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)91417-8View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D, Moscicki AB, Smith RA, Eyre HJ, Cohen C, American Cancer Society: American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2002,52(6):342–362. 10.3322/canjclin.52.6.342View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Hatch EE, Herbst AL, Hoover RN, Noller KL, Adam E, Kaufman RH, Palmer JR, Titus-Ernstoff L, Hyer M, Hartge P, Robboy SJ: Incidence of squamous n eoplasia of the cervix and vagina in women exposed prenatally to diethylstilbestrol (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2001,12(9):837–845. 10.1023/A:1012229112696View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Koutsky LA, Ault KA, Wheeler CM, Brown DR, Barr E, Alvarez FB, Chiacchierini LM, Jansen KU, Proof of Principle Study Investigators: A controlled trial of a human papillomavirus type 16 vaccine. N Engl J Med 2002,347(21):1645–1651. 10.1056/NEJMoa020586View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2004

Advertisement