Prevalence of human papillomavirus types in invasive cervical cancers from 7 US cancer registries before vaccine introduction.

doi:10.1097/LGT.0b013e3182a577c7

Loading publication...

Noodle always counts identifier-free feature events for service operation. With your permission, Google Analytics can also estimate audience and engagement. Search text, publication identifiers, cookies, IP addresses and browser fingerprints are never included in Noodle's first-party event counters.

Privacy details

Back to search

Article

Prevalence of human papillomavirus types in invasive cervical cancers from 7 US cancer registries before vaccine introduction.

Journal of lower genital tract disease - 1 Apr 2014

Hopenhayn Claudia, Christian Amy, Christian Warren Jay, Watson Meg, Unger Elizabeth R, Lynch Charles F, Peters Edward S, Wilkinson Edward J, Huang Youjie, Copeland Glenn, Cozen Wendy, Saber Maria Sibug, Goodman Marc T, Hernandez Brenda Y, Steinau Martin, Lyu Christopher, Tucker Thomas T, Saraiya Mona

Abstract excerpt

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a baseline study of human papillomavirus (HPV) type prevalence in invasive cervical cancers (ICCs) using data from 7 cancer registries (CRs) in the United States. Cases were diagnosed between 1994 and 2005 before the implementation of the HPV vaccines. MATERIALS AND METHOD...

Topics

Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Female
Genotype
Genotyping Techniques
Humans
Middle Aged
Molecular Epidemiology

Methodology Data sources Editorial policy Privacy About Contact Helena Bioinformatics

Papillomaviridae

Prevalence

Registries

United States

Uterine Cervical Neoplasms

Young Adult

Source

Open in PubMed Open full text

Identifiers

PMID: 24477171
DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0b013e3182a577c7
PMCID: PMC4294218

Provenance

PubMed metadata and Literature Corpus relationships. Corpus snapshot updated 30 Aug 2026. Prepared record publication-24477171-2026-08-30.1. Manifest publication-graph-cohort-2026-08-30.1.

Source receipt: PubMed via Helena Literature Corpus, retrieved 30 Aug 2026.

Community interpretation

Discuss the evidence

Ask a question, add context or challenge an interpretation. Community activity is separate from scientific evidence strength.

discussions

replies

Citations encouraged

Claims remain attributable.

No discussion yet

Be the first to add a careful, cited interpretation.