Geography – Independent Prognostic and Medical Decision-Making Factor in Cervical Cancer
Le résumé fourni par la source
Geography represents an independent factor, often underestimated, when making medical decisions and determining cervical cancer prognosis and disease trajectory. Despite the existence of unified European therapeutic protocols, Europe remains divided by significant differences in cervical cancer mortality rates. Since the early 1990s, a steady decrease has been reported when considering the continent as a whole. However, in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer are estimated to have increased. The actual figures are not known, as there are few functional population-based registries in these countries. Regional differences in the implementation of screening programs and HPV vaccination, the lack of public awareness and education, a deficient and rudimentary health infrastructure (including access to radiotherapy and combined therapies), along with socio-economic constraints, contribute to the existing inequalities in cervical cancer outcomes between CEE countries and the rest of Europe. This chapter aims to explore the geographic dimension of cervical cancer and analyze how it influences medical decisions, oncologic results, disease epidemiology and trends. Understanding the disparities between CEE and the rest of Europe is essential to formulate equitable health strategies adapted to the regional context, aiming to reduce the cervical cancer burden and ensure equal access to quality healthcare for all European women.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Geography – Independent Prognostic and Medical Decision-Making Factor in Cervical Cancer
- Date Crossref
- 02/12/2025
- Éditeur
- IntechOpen
- Type
- book-chapter
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.