New colposcopy terminology was prepared by the Nomenclature Committee of the International Federation of Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy after a critical review of previous terminologies, online discussions, and discussion with national colposcopy societies and individual colposcopists. This document has been expanded to include terminology of both the cervix and vagina. The popular terms “satisfactory colposcopy” and “unsatisfactory colposcopy” have been replaced. The colposcopic examination should be assessed for three variables: 1) adequate or inadequate, with the reason given; 2) squamocolumnar junction visibility; and 3) transformation zone type. Other additions were the localization of the lesion to either inside or outside the transformation zone and determinants of size as well as location of cervical lesions. Two new signs were included in the terminology—the “inner border sign” and “ridge sign.” The following definitions have been added: congenital transformation zone, polyp (ectocervical or endocervical), stenosis, congenital anomaly, and posttreatment consequence. In addition, the terminology includes standardization of cervical excision treatment types and cervical excision specimen dimensions. The International Federation of Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy recommends that the 2011 terminology replace all others and be implemented for diagnosis, treatment, and research.

In 2014, the executive council of the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease, the boards of directors of the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health, and the International Pelvic Pain Society acknowledged the need to revise the current terminology of vulvar pain, on the basis of the significant increase in high-quality etiologic studies published in the last decade. The new terminology was achieved in the following 4 steps. The first involved a terminology consensus conference with representatives of the 3 societies, held in April 2015. Then, an analysis of the relevant published studies was used to establish a level of evidence for each factor associated with vulvodynia. The terminology was amended on the basis of feedback from members of the societies. Finally, each society's board accepted the new terminology. In 2015,the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease, International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health, and International Pelvic Pain Society adopted a new vulvar pain and vulvodynia terminology that acknowledges the complexity of the clinical presentation and pathophysiology involved in vulvar pain and vulvodynia, and incorporates new information derived from evidence-based studies conducted since the last terminology published in 2003.

Introduction: In 2014, the Executive Council of the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD), the Boards of Directors of the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health (ISSWSH), and the International Pelvic Pain Society (IPPS) acknowledged the need to revise the current terminology of vulvar pain, based on the significant increase in high quality etiologic studies published in the last decade. Methods: The new terminology was achieved in four steps. The first involved a terminology consensus conference with representatives of the three societies, held in April 2015. Then, an analysis of the relevant published studies was used to establish a level of evidence for each factor associated with vulvodynia. The terminology was amended based on feedback from members of the societies. Finally, each society's board accepted the new terminology. Results and Conclusion: In 2015, the ISSVD, ISSWSH, and IPPS adopted a new vulvar pain and vulvodynia terminology that acknowledges the complexity of the clinical presentation and pathophysiology involved in vulvar pain and vulvodynia, and incorporates new information derived from evidence-based studies conducted since the last terminology published in 2003.

The EUROGIN 2011 roadmap reviews the current burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)‐related morbidity, as well as the evidence and potential practice recommendations regarding primary and secondary prevention and treatment of cancers and other disease associated with HPV infection. HPV infection causes ∼600,000 cases of cancer of the cervix, vulva, vagina, anus and oropharynx annually, as well as benign diseases such as genital warts and recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Whereas the incidence of cervical cancer has been decreasing over recent decades, the incidence of anal and oropharyngeal carcinoma, for which there are no effective screening programs, has been rising over the last couple of decades. Randomized trials have demonstrated improved efficacy of HPV‐based compared to cytology‐based cervical cancer screening. Defining the best algorithms to triage HPV‐positive women, age ranges and screening intervals are priorities for pooled analyses and further research, whereas feasibility questions can be addressed through screening programs. HPV vaccination will reduce the burden of cervical precancer and probably also of invasive cervical and other HPV‐related disease in women. Recent trials demonstrated that prophylactic vaccination also protects against anogenital HPV infection, anogenital intraepithelial lesions and warts associated with vaccine types, in males; and anal HPV infection and anal intraepithelial neoplasia in MSM. HPV‐related oropharyngeal cancer could be treated less aggressively because of better survival compared to cancers of the oropharynx unrelated to HPV. Key findings in the field of cervical cancer prevention should now be translated in cost‐effective strategies, following an organized approach integrating primary and secondary prevention, according to scientific evidence but adapted to the local situation with particular attention to regions with the highest burden of disease.