Global Health Now reports: 'Global cervical cancer cases could increase by ~20% and deaths by ~39% by 2050, per a modeling study published in Nature Medicine, which projects the highest incidence and mortality rates in sub-Saharan Africa.'
CITATION: Published: 02 November 2026
Global, regional and national burden of cervical cancer in 1990–2023 with forecasts to 2050: a Global Burden of Disease study
GBD 2023 Cervical Cancer Collaborators
Nature Medicine (2026)
ABSTRACT
Although highly preventable, cervical cancer remains one of the most common malignancies among women worldwide. As part of the Global Burden of Disease study, we estimated cervical cancer incidence, mortality and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) across 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2023, with forecasts to 2050. In 2023, 887,000 new cases (95% uncertainty interval 682,000–1,170,000), 369,000 deaths (292,000–475,000) and 13.3 million DALYs (10.1–17.4) were estimated globally. Age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) and age-standardized mortality rates (ASMR) were more than four and seven times higher in low- versus high-income countries. Between 1990 and 2023, global ASIR was largely stable (−0.4% (–26.6 to 34.7)), whereas ASMR changed by −17.5% (–36.2 to 13.4). All cervical cancer DALYs were attributable to human papillomavirus infection, with tobacco use contributing 5.9% (3.2–9.3) globally. By 2050, global ASIR and ASMR are forecast to change by −12.5% (–25.7 to 3.5) and −9.0% (–21.5 to 6.6) from 2024, yet absolute cases and deaths are forecast to rise by 20.2% (4.6–38.5) and 39.3% (23.6–57.3). ASIR and ASMR are forecast to remain highest in low-income countries. Intensified action is needed to accelerate progress.
COMMENTS (NPW): I would like to make two comments, on e general and one specific:
1. This paper is restricted-access, so most of us cannot read it. It's interesting to see a list of the 'GBD 2023 Cervical Cancer Collaborators'. There must be more than 500 people listed here. Which makes me ask: "Why did they decide to publish restricted-access rather than open access?" It would presumably have been highly affordable to pay the article processing charge for open access. A clue is that the research was funded by the Gates Foundation, which has famously refused to pay article processing charges. It would be interesting to see an analysis of the accessibility of Gates-funded research since their policy was introduced. And if a paper cannot be accessed, it cannot have maximum impact.
2. Global Health Now says the paper 'projects the highest incidence and mortality rates in sub-Saharan Africa'. This is an important finding, and yet it is not included in the abstract. Why?
Best wishes, Neil
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org