Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Cancer Risk Studies and Priority Areas for Cancer Risk Appraisal in Uganda Cover

Cancer Risk Studies and Priority Areas for Cancer Risk Appraisal in Uganda

Open Access
|Jul 2020

Figures & Tables

NoType of cancer n (%)Aims/scope of cancer risk and prevention studies done in Uganda from January 2000 to January 2020
1Cervical
18 (23.4%)
These studies assessed awareness about cervical cancer risk factors, perceptions and attitudes, uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination, sexual behaviour of the HPV-vaccinated and non-vaccinated young girls, perceived barriers to cervical screening, knowledge and attitudes of men about HPV, healthcare, patients’ factors and stage at diagnosis, self versus clinic-based collection of HPV specimens for cervical screening.
Functional cervical health literacy, the intention of women to screen for cervical cancer, uptake and correlates of cervical screening among HIV-infected women, uptake of cervical cancer screening in rural communities, perceptions of community members on integration of cervical screening in HIV clinics, and acceptability of cervical screening integration into immunization clinics were also assessed.
2Lymphomas
16 (20.7%)
These studies described the epidemiology of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), prevalence of EBV, human herpes virus 8 (HHV-8), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, age-specific patterns of Burkitt lymphoma (BL) cases, malaria, and risk of endemic Burkitt lymphoma (eBL) and factors associated with time to diagnosis of BL cases.
The next-generation sequencing (NGS) to detect B-cell receptor (BCR) gene rearrangements in eBL, oral human herpes virus shedding kinetics, EBV viral load, and serology were investigated.
3Breast
12 (15.6%)
These studies investigated breastfeeding and breast cancer risk, impact of alcohol, effect of knowledge on prevention, perceived barriers to early detection, role of high serum estradiol, role of blood folate level, and risk of breast cancer by ER status. Breast self-examination practices, role of family obligation, and stress on women’s participation in preventive breast health services, efficacy of mass self-breast screening, relationship between benign breast tumour (BBD) and breast cancer, full-term pregnancy, and breast cancer risk were investigated.
4Kaposi sarcoma
4 (5.1%)
These studies investigated the human herpes virus (HHV-8) DNA in plasma, characterized the HHV-8 transcriptome, the HHV-8 gene expression in KS tumors for identification of candidate biomarkers, and risk factors for HHV-8 DNA detection.
5Esophageal and other gastrointestinal, excluding liver
3 (3.8%)
These studies determined the prevalence, trend, and distribution of gastrointestinal malignancies and estimated the population attributable fraction of smoking and alcohol to esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and characterized the burden of esophageal cancer.
6Liver
4 (5.1%)
These studies focused on the prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, its risk factors and evaluated the prevention-behavioral intentions in regard to HBV and liver cancer.
7Prostate
2 (2.6%)
These studies assessed the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of men regarding risk, prevention, and screening for prostate cancer.
8Conjunctival
2 (2.6%)
Factors associated with conjunctival cancer, determining if conjunctival squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) harbors human HPV DNA and if CSCC is associated with activation of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling pathway were investigated.
9HIV and cancer
6 (7.8%)
These studies evaluated the association between anti-retroviral treatment (ART) and cancer incidence, how HIV infection influences the presentation and manifestation of cancer, HIV infection and stage of cancer at presentation for treatment. The role of HIV in cancer survival and well-being of cancer patients, frequency of genital HSV shedding in HIV-seropositive versus HIV-seronegative men and women were also evaluated.
10NCDs-cancer related risk
5 (6.5%)
These studies described the prevalence of risk factors for non-communicable diseases (NCDS), including tobacco use and alcohol consumption in Uganda and assessed the willingness of tobacco farmers to stop growing tobacco.
11Trend in cancer incidence
3 (4.0%)
These studies described the trends of the commonest cancers in Uganda using data from Kampala and Gulu population-based cancer registries.
12Anogenital
1 (1.3%)
This study assessed the risk factors of anogenital warts.
13Breast & cervical awareness tool
1 (1.3%)
This study developed and validated breast and cervical cancer awareness assessment tool.
Table 1

Summary of quantitative findings of cervical cancer risk studies conducted in Uganda from January 2000 to January 2020.

NoAuthors, yearStudy typesSample sizeFactorEffect measureEffect size (95% CI)P-value
1Mukama et al. 2017 [4]Cross-sectional900Knowledge of at least one preventive measure of CC among women in Eastern UgandaProportion62.4%
2Mwaka et al. 2015 [519]Cross-sectional448Knowledge of CC risk factors among women in northern UgandaProportion82.6%
3Mukama et al. 2017 [4]Cross-sectional900Perceived risk of CCProportion76%
4Mutyaba et al. 2006 [7]Cross-sectional300Knew at least one risk factors of CCProportion40%
5Mwaka et al. 2015 [5]Cross-sectional149Financial difficulties and risk of late diagnosisaOR5.5 (1.58, 20.64)
6Mwaka et al. 2015 [5]Cross-sectional149Late referral and risk of late diagnosisaOR13.0 (3.59–47.3)
7Mwaka et al. 2015 [5]Cross-sectional1495–9 biological children and risk of late-diagnosisaOR0.27 (0.08– 0.96)
8Campos et al. 2017 [119]Monte Carlo simulation modelHPV self-collection efficiency versus clinic sampling.Minimum coverage for efficiency75%
9Twinomujuni et al. 2015 [9]Cross-sectional416Ever-screened for cervical cancerProportion7%
10Twinomujuni et al. 2015 [9]Cross-sectional416Intention to screen among those with sexual partner.aPR1.4 (1.11–1.68)
11Twinomujuni et al. 2015 [9]Cross-sectional416Intention to screen among those unafraid of positive resultaPR1.6 (1.36–1.93)
12Twinomujuni et al. 2015 [9]Cross-sectional416Intention to screen among those with perceived high risk of CCaPR2.0 (1.60–2.58)
13Wanyenze et al. 2017 [10]Cross-sectional5198Screening uptake among HIV-infected% coverage30.3%
14Wanyenze et al. 2017 [10]Cross-sectional5198Lack of time for screening among HIV-infectedProportion25.5%
15Ndejjo et al. 2017 [4]Cross-sectional900Intention to screen in general populationProportion91%
16Ndejjo et al. 2017 [4]Cross-sectional900Willing to vaccinate their daughters against cervical cancerProportion90.4%
17Ndejjo et al. 2016 [16]Cross-sectional900Health worker’s advice as predictor for screeningaOR87.850.001
18Ndejjo et al. 2016 [16]Cross-sectional900Knowing where screening services are offered as predictor for screeningaOR6.240.004
19Ndejjo et al. 2016 [16]Cross-sectional900Knowing someone who had ever been screened as predictor for screeningaOR9.480.001
20Banura et al. 2008 [14]Cross-over Case-control987Prevalence of HPV among womenPR60%
21Kisakye et al. 2018 [15]Cross-sectional460Uptake of HPV vaccination% coverage17.61%
22Kisakye et al. 2018 [15]Cross-sectional460Effect of higher level of education on HPV vaccination uptakeaPR1.48 (1.11–1.97)
23Kisakye et al. 2018 [15]Cross-sectional460Effect of positive attitude on HPV vaccination uptakeaPR3.46 (1.70–7.02)
24Kisakye et al. 2018 [15]Cross-sectional460Effect of health worker’s advice on HPV vaccination uptake.aPR1.55 (1.15–2.11)
25Kisakye et al. 2018 [15]Cross-sectional460Effect of Village Health Team on HPV vaccination uptakeaPR3.47 (1.50–8.02)
26Kisakye et al. 2018 [15]Cross-sectional460Effect of community outreaches on HPV vaccination uptakeaPR1.47 (1.02–2.12)
27Kisakye et al. 2018 [15]Cross-sectional460Effect of HPV vaccine availability on HPV vaccination uptakeaPR4.84 (2.90–8.08)
28Moses et al. 2018 [120]Cross-sectional60Men who have ever heard of HPV% proportion24.6%
29Wawer et al. 2018 [18]Randomised trial544 IG, 488 CGIncidence of high-risk HPV infection is lower in women with circumcised sexual partners compared to uncircumcised.IRR0·77 (0·63–0·93)0·008
20Li et al. 2017 [121]Cross-sectional571Effect of age on acceptability of cervical screeningOR1.10<0.001
31Li et al. 2017 [121]Cross-sectional571Effect of employment on acceptability of cervical screeningOR2.000.019

[i] * aPR = adjusted prevalence ratio, OR = Odds ratio, aOR = adjusted odds ratio, IRR = Incidence rate ratio, CC = cervical cancer, CI = confidence interval, IG = Intervention group, CG = Control group.

Table 2

Summary of quantitative findings on lymphomas’ risk studies conducted in Uganda from January 2000 to January 2020.

NoAuthors, YearStudy typesSample sizeFactor/variableEffect measureEffect size (95% CI)P-value
1Orem et al. 2014 [21]Case- control96 cases, 31controlsWhole-blood EBV viral load in BL compared to other NHLOR6.67 (1.32–33.69)0.04
2Orem et al. 2014 [21]Case- control96 cases, 31controlsChronic inflammatory conditions and risk of NHL other than BLOR0.19 (0.07–0.51)0.001
3Tumwine et al. 2010 [22]Cross-sectional119Prevalence of EBV in BL tumoursPR92%
4Tumwine et al. 2010 [22]Cross-sectional119Prevalence of EBV in diffuse large B cell lymphomas tumoursPR34.8%
5Tumwine et al. 2010 [22]Cross-sectional119Prevalence of HHV-8 in BL tumoursPR0%
6Tumwine et al. 2010 [22]Cross-sectional119Prevalence of HHV-8 in diffuse large B cell lymphomas tumoursPR0%
7Gantt et al. 2016 [122]Panel study32The 12-month incidence of postnatal infection with HHV-6B.IR76%
8Gantt et al. 2016 [122]Panel study32The 12-month incidence of postnatal infection with CMV.IR59%
9Gantt et al. 2016 [122]Panel study32The 12-month incidence of postnatal infection with EBV.IR47%
10Gantt et al. 2016 [122]Panel study32The 12-month incidence of postnatal infection with, for HSV-1, and 0% for HHV-8.IR8%
11Gantt et al. 2016 [122]Panel study32The 12-month incidence of postnatal infection with HHV-8.IR0%
12Gantt et al. 2016 [122]Panel study32Association of maternal HIV-1 infection with EBV.aHR7.2 (2.4–22.2)<.001
13Gantt et al. 2016 [122]Panel study32Association of breastfeeding with CMV.aHR5.0 (1.2–21.1)0.03
14Gantt et al. 2016 [122]Panel study49Association of younger child contacts with CMV.aHR1.4 (1.0–2.0)0.04
15Derkach et al. 2019 [27]Case-control343 cases, 750 controlseBL cases reactivity to severe malaria associated antigens (PfEMP1).aOR0.60 (0.41–0.88)0.03
16Derkach et al. 2019 [27]Case-control343 cases, 750 controlseBL cases reactivity to Pf Malaria SERA5 protein.X2trendPtrend 0.007
17Derkach et al. 2019 [27]Case-control343 cases, 750 controlseBL cases reactivity to group A CIDRα1.5 variant.X2trendPtrend 0.034
18Buckle et al. 2013 [29]Cross-sectional82Median time of “total delay” to diagnosis of BL.Median12.9 weeks (IQR 4.3–25.7)
19Buckle et al. 2013 [29]Cross-sectional82Median time of “guardian delay” from1st symptoms of BL to 1st health encounter.Median4.3 weeks (Range 0.7–149.9)
20Buckle et al. 2013 [29]Cross-sectional82Median time of “health system delay” to 1st health encounter to BL diagnosis.Median2.6 weeks (range 0.1–16.0)
21Maziarz et al. 2017 [25]Cross-sectional1150Pf malaria prevalence rate in northern Uganda.Prevalence rate54.8%
22Peprah et al. 2019 [24]Case-control862 cases, 2,934 controlsHistory of in-patient malaria treatment 12 months ago and risk of eBLOR2.55 (1.39, 4.67)0.01
23Peprah et al. 2019 [24]Case-control862 cases, 2,934 controlsHigher maternal income and risk of eBLOR0.27 (0.14–0.52)P-trend 0.004
24Peprah et al. 2019 [24]Case-control862 cases, 2,934 controlsHigher level of paternal education and risk of eBLOR0.59 (0.39–0.89)P-trend
0.013
25Peprah et al. 2019 [24]Case-control862 cases, 2,934 controlsHigher maternal education and risk of eBLOR0.51 (0.28–0.96)P-trend 0.005

[i] * aHR = adjusted hazard ratio, IC = incidence rate, PR = prevalence rate, aPR = adjusted prevalence ratio, aOR = adjusted odds ratio, CI = confidence interval, Ptrend = P-value for trend analysis, CMV = cytomegalovirus, EBV = Epstein Barr Virus, HHV = human herpes virus 1, 6, 8. Pf = Plasmodium falciparum, PfEMP1 = Plasmodium falciparum erythrocyte membrane protein-1, SERA5 = Serine repeat antigen 5, CIDRα1.5 = Cysteine-rich interdomain region-α1.5 protein, BL = Burkitt lymphoma, eBL = endemic Burkitt lymphoma, NHL = non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Table 3

Summary of quantitative findings on breast cancer risk studies conducted in Uganda from January 2000 to January 2020.

NoAuthors, YearStudy typesSample sizeFactorEffect measureEffect size (95% CI)P-value
1Galukande et al. 2016 [30]Case-control113 cases and 237Effect of breastfeeding on the risk of breast canceraOR0.04 (0.01–0.18)
2Qian et al. 2014 [32]Case-control2138 Cases & 2,589 controlsCurrent alcohol drinking and risk of breast cancer.aOR1.01 (0.55–1.85)
3Qian et al. 2014 [32]Case-control2138 Cases & 2,589 controlsPast alcohol drinking and risk of breast canceraOR0.99 (0.57–1.75)
4Awio et al. 2012 [33]Case-control70 Cases & 70 controlsRelationship between level of serum estradiol and breast cancer risk in cases compared to controls0.647
5Awio et al. 2012 [33]Case-control70 Cases & 70 controlsHigher BMI index and risk of breast cancerOR1.02 (1.01–1.04)
6Awio et al. 2012 [33]Case-control70 Cases & 70 controlsLate onset of menarche and risk of breast cancerOR0.68 (0.52–0.90)
7Atuhairwe et al. 2018 [39]Cross-sectional400Relationship between radio as source of information and uptake of breast cancer prevention modalities.OR1.94 (1.16–3.24)
8Atuhairwe et al. 2018 [39]Cross-sectional400Relationship between TVs as source of information and uptake of breast cancer prevention modalities.OR1.82 (1.14–2.93)
9Atuhairwe et al. 2018 [39]Cross-sectional400Relationship between community cancer awareness by health workers as source of information and uptake of breast cancer prevention modalities.OR4.03 (1.01–15.98)
10Atuhairwe et al. 2018 [39]Cross-sectional400Relationship between knowledge of breast cancer risk and uptake of breast cancer prevention modalities.OR1.98 (1.20–3.27)
11Atuhairwe et al. 2018 [39]Cross-sectional400Relationship between knowing symptoms of breast cancer and uptake of breast cancer prevention modalitiesOR3.09 (1.62–5.88)
12Galukande et al. 2013 [123]Cross-sectional (Analytical)113ER negative tumors exhibited significantly higher-grade tumors0.001
13Katende et al. 2016 [37]Cross-sectional204Level of breast cancer awareness among Makerere university students.Proportion98.0%
14Katende et al. 2016 [37]Cross-sectional204Skills related to breast self-exam (BSE) practices among Makerere university students.Proportion43.6%
15Scheel et al. 2019 [40]Cross-sectional401Effect of family obligation (FO) stress on women’s participation in preventive breast health awareness.Regression PD–0.020.008
16Scheel et al. 2019 [40]Cross-sectional401Effect of FO stress on women’s participation in breast health check-up.Regression-PD–0.020.018
17Adedokun et al. 2019 [34]Case-control@(2405 cases and 2749 controls)The risk of breast cancer among women with history of benign breast disease compared to those withoutaOR1.42 (1.13–1.79)
18Sighoko et al. 2015 [31]Case-control1995 cases and 2631 controlsRisk of breast cancer in a parous woman with her first FTP at 20 years relative to nulliparousOR0.76 (0.57–0.99)
19Sighoko et al. 2015 [31]Case-control1995 cases and 2631 controlsRisk of breast cancer in a parous woman with 1 pregnancy relative to nulliparous.OR0.69 (0.49–0.96)
20Sighoko et al. 2015 [31]Case-control1995 cases and 2631 controlsRisk of breast cancer in a parous woman with 2 to 5 pregnancies relative to nulliparous.0R0.66 (0.48–0.91)
21Sighoko et al. 2015 [31]Case-control1995 cases and 2631 controlsRisk of breast cancer in a parous woman with 6 or more pregnanciesOR0.67 (0.47–0.94)

[i] * OR = Odds ratio, aOR = adjusted odds ratio, CI = confidence interval, PD = Probability difference per 1-point increase, aPR = adjusted prevalence ratio. @ = conducted in Uganda, Nigeria, and Cameroon.

Table 4

Summary of quantitative findings on other cancer risk studies conducted in Uganda from January 2000 to January 2020.

NoAuthors, YearStudy typesSample sizeFactorEffect measureEffect size (95% CI)P-value
1Kabwama et al. 2016 [43]Cross-sectional3983Prevalence of daily tobacco usePrevalence rate9.2 %
2Kabwama et al. 2016 [43]Cross-sectional3983Men are more likely to be daily tobacco usersaOR5.51 [3.81–7.95]
3Kabwama et al. 2016 [47]Cross-sectional3,956Prevalence of alcohol consumptionPrevalence rate26.8%
4Kabwama et al. 2016 [47]Cross-sectional3,956Prevalence of high-end alcohol consumptionPrevalence rate12.7%
5Mondo et al. 2013 [48]Cross-sectional611Physically active status in rural Uganda.49%
6Mondo et al. 2013 [48]Cross-sectional611Daily ate five or more servings of fruits in rural Uganda.Prevalence rate7.2%
7Mondo et al. 2013 [48]Cross-sectional611Daily ate five or more servings of vegetables in rural Uganda.Prevalence rate1.2%
8Mondo et al. 2013 [48]Cross-sectional611Obesity in men in rural Uganda.Prevalence rate4.9%
9Mondo et al. 2013 [48]Cross-sectional611Obesity in women rural Uganda.Prevalence rate9.0%
10Shebi et al. 2013 [124]Cross-sectional1,080 KSHV+356 KSHV-Plasma KSHV DNA in KSHV seropositivity persons.Prevalence rate95%
11Shebi et al. 2013 [124]Cross-sectional1,080 KSHV+356 KSHV-Plasma KSHV DNA in KSHV seronegative persons.Prevalence rate5%
12Shebi et al. 2013 [124]Cross-sectional1,080 KSHV+356 KSHV-KSHV DNA quantity in plasma was higher in male sex.Prevalence rate0.002
13Shebi et al. 2013 [124125]Cross-sectional1,080 KSHV+356 KSHV-KSHV DNA quantity in plasma was higher in rural compared to urban.Prevalence rate0.002
14Rose et al. 2018 [126]Cross-sectional22 KS biopsiesKS tumors with a latent phenotype had high levels of total KSHV transcription than tumors with a lytic phenotype
15Rose et al. 2018 [126]Cross-sectional22 KS biopsiesMorphologically distinct KS tumors from the same individual exhibited similar KSHV gene expression profile.
16Phipps et al. 2015 [127]Cross-sectional48 KS biopsiesKS tumors expressed high levels of both latent and lytic HHV-8 mRNA transcripts.
17Phipps et al. 2015 [127]Cross-sectional48 KS biopsiesGenes encoding cytokines (vIL-6), growth regulatory genes (v-CYC), and apoptosis inhibitors (v-FLIP) were associated with different tumor types.
18Nalwoga et al. 2019 [125]Cross-sectional878Detectable KSHV in blood decreases with agePrevalence rate22–23%
19Nalwoga et al. 2019 [125]Cross-sectional878Detectable KSHV in saliva increases with age up to 12 years and subsequently decreases with increasing agePrevalence rate30–45%
20Nalwoga et al. 2019 [125]Cross-sectional878More males (29%) than females (19%) shed KSHV DNA in saliva.Prevalence rate0.008
21Nalwoga et al. 2019 [125]Cross-sectional878Individuals with a current malaria showed higher levels of KSHV DNA in bloodPrevalence rate0.031
22Ocama et al. 2008 [53]Cross-sectional216Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is most prevalent in UgandaPrevalence rate98%
23Ocama et al. 2008 [53]Cross-sectional216Esophageal cancer of upper third is of squamous cell typePrevalence rate100%
24Obayo et al. 2017 [52]Ecologica1468The esophageal cancer is commonest gastro-intestinal malignancies over a 10-year period.Prevalence rate28.8% of the GIM
25Obayo et al. 2017 [52]Ecologica1468The distribution of gastro-intestinal malignancies differs by regions.Prevalence rate0.001
26Okello et al. 2016 [54]Case-control67 cases and 142 controlsPAF of ESCC due to smoking.PAF16
26Okello et al. 2016 [54]Case-control67 cases and 142 controlsPAF ESCC due to alcohol.PAF10
27Okello et al. 2016 [54]Case-control67 cases and 142 controlsCombined PAF of ESCC due to smoking and alcohol.PAF13%
28Bwogi et al. 2009 [55]Cross-sectional5875National prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection by HBsAg test.Prevalence rate10.3% (9.5–11.1)
29Bwogi et al. 2009 [55]Cross-sectional5875Prevalence of HBV infection is highest in North-Eastern Uganda.Prevalence rate23.9%< 0.001
30Bwogi et al. 2009 [55]Cross-sectional5875Prevalence of HBV infection in Northern Uganda is the second highest.Prevalence rate20%< 0.001
31Nankya-Mutyoba et al. 2019 [128]Cross-sectional455Perceived risk and intention to screen for HBV was inversely associated.PRR0.95(0.90–1.00)0.055
32Nankya-Mutyoba et al. 2019 [128]Cross-sectional455Perceived self-efficacy was positively associated with intention to screen for HBV.PRR1.18(1.10–1.23)0.005
33Kang et al. 2015 [59]Longitudinal evaluation713Prevalence of aflatoxin in human serumPrevalence90%
34Du Z et al. 2018 [50]Case-control571 cases and 485 controlsIn GWAS, the 8q24 risk region including rs72725854 was found a major contributor to Pca risk in Ugandan menOR3.37P = 2.14 × 10–11
35Du Z et al. 2018 [50]Case-control571 cases and 485 controlsProportion of Pca risk accounted for by the African ancestry-specific risk variant rs72725854.Proportion12%
36Nakandi et al. 2013 [49]Cross-sectional545Perceived susceptibility to Pca riskProportion63.5%
37Nakandi et al. 2013 [49]Cross-sectional545Intention to screen for PcaProportion22.9%
38Nakandi et al. 2013 [49]Cross-sectional545Knowledge on Pca riskProportion10.3%
39Newton et al. 2002 [129]Case-control60 cases and 1214 controlsConjunctival cancer was positively associated with HIV infectionOR10(5.2–19.4)<0.001
40Yu et al 2010 [130]Cross-sectional38Prevalence of HPV-18 genotype in conjunctival tumoursPrevalence rate61%
41Yu et al 2010 [130]Cross-sectional38Prevalence of HPV-16 genotype in conjunctival tumoursPrevalence rate16%
42Yu et al 2010 [130]Cross-sectional38Relationship between cytoplasmic p-MAPK and conjunctival tumor invasiveness.0.05 or
43Yu et al 2010 [130]Cross-sectional38Relationship between cytoplasmic p-Akt and conjunctival tumor invasiveness.0.028
44Yu et al 2010 [130]Cross-sectional38Relationship between EGFR signaling pathway expression and conjunctival tumor invasiveness0.01
45Mutyaba et al. 2015 [131]Ecological12,263Availability of
ART decreased the incidence of KS.
Proportion5%
46Mutyaba et al. 2015 [131]Ecological12,263Availability of
ART decreased the incidence of stomach cancer.
Proportion13%
47Menon et al. 2017 [132]Case -control449 cases and 282 controlsHIV-positive patients were less likely to present for care at an advanced stage.OR0.53(0.30 to 0.94)

[i] * OR = odds ratio, aOR = adjusted odds ratio, CI = confidence interval, KSHV = Kaposi’s sarcoma associated herpesvirus, PR = prevalence rate, aPR = adjusted prevalence ratio, GIM = gastro-intestinal malignancies. PAF = population attributable fraction, Pca = prostate cancer, ART = anti-retroviral therapy, + = Positive, – = Negative.

agh-86-1-2873-g1.png
Figure 1

Top 10 causes of cancer mortality in Uganda. Source: Globocan 2018, IARC.

agh-86-1-2873-g2.png
Figure 2

PRISMA Flow chart of cancer risk and prevention studies.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.2873 | Journal eISSN: 2214-9996
Language: English
Published on: Jul 7, 2020
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2020 Alfred Jatho, Binh Thang Tran, Jansen Marcos Cambia, Miisa Nanyingi, Noleb Mugume Mugisha, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.