Policy analysis reveals severe cervical cancer prevention deficits in Eastern Europe, highlighting the need for registry-based screening with primary HPV testing and triage.
Cervical cancer is one of the most preventable malignancies, yet disparities in survival remain a significant public health burden across Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Bulgaria illustrates this paradox: HPV vaccination coverage is very low, and prevention continues to rely substantially on opportunistic screening, although recent national initiatives have introduced HPV-based testing and self-sampling. This article argues that the primary barrier to cervical cancer control in Bulgaria is not the lack of medical technology, but the absence of a structured, organized screening system. A modern national cervical cancer screening program should be recognized as a structured clinical and organizational pathway rather than a single diagnostic test. Such a programme requires population identification, active invitation and recall, reg-istry-based tracking, standardized referral and follow-up pathways, and continuous quality assurance. Primary high-risk HPV (hrHPV) testing provides high sensitivity and excellent negative predictive value, supporting longer screening intervals; however, screening for HPV positivity alone is insufficient as a sole referral criterion because many infections are transient and clinically insignificant. We propose a rational framework for cervical cancer screening in Bulgaria and comparable health systems: invitation-based screening for women aged 25–65 years built on primary hrHPV testing with genotyping, reflex cytology, and selective use of p16/Ki-67 dual staining. Drawing on a regional comparison of HPV vaccination and screening programs and on Bulgarian cost-of-illness data, we argue that transitioning from opportunistic testing to an integrated, registry-based screening cascade is essential for effective and equitable cervical cancer prevention in the region.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yordanov et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: