Explore the vast range of titles available.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) immunisation with a bivalent vaccine (Cervarix) was introduced in England, UK, in Sept 1, 2008: routine vaccination was offered to girls aged 12–13 years with a catch-up programme for females aged 14–18 years in 2008–10. We quantified the early effect of this immunisation programme on cervical cancer and cervical carcinoma in situ, namely grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3), registrations. In this observational study, we used an extension of the age-period-cohort Poisson model to estimate the relative risk of cervical cancer in three vaccinated cohorts compared with earlier cohorts that were not eligible for HPV vaccination. Data from a population-based cancer registry were extracted on Jan 26, 2021, and were assessed for diagnoses of cervical cancer and CIN3 from Jan 1, 2006 to June 30, 2019 in women aged 20–64 years and who were a resident in England. We used three vaccinated cohorts to account for differences in the school year in which the vaccine was offered and its national coverage. Adjustment for confounding was made using information on changes in cervical screening policy and historical events that affected cervical cancer incidence. Results were compared across models with different adjustments for confounders. We used data from a total of 13·7 million-years of follow-up of women aged 20 years to younger than 30 years. The estimated relative reduction in cervical cancer rates by age at vaccine offer were 34% (95% CI 25–41) for age 16–18 years (school year 12–13), 62% (52–71) for age 14–16 years (school year 10–11), and 87% (72–94) for age 12–13 years (school year 8), compared with the reference unvaccinated cohort. The corresponding risk reductions for CIN3 were 39% (95% CI 36–41) for those offered at age 16–18 years, 75% (72–77) for age 14–16 years, and 97% (96–98) for age 12–13 years. These results remained similar across models. We estimated that by June 30, 2019 there had been 448 (339–556) fewer than expected cervical cancers and 17 235 (15 919–18 552) fewer than expected cases of CIN3 in vaccinated cohorts in England. We observed a substantial reduction in cervical cancer and incidence of CIN3 in young women after the introduction of the HPV immunisation programme in England, especially in individuals who were offered the vaccine at age 12–13 years. The HPV immunisation programme has successfully almost eliminated cervical cancer in women born since Sept 1, 1995. Cancer Research UK.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections. However, only a small percentage of high-risk (HR) HPV infections progress to cervical precancer and cancer. In this study, we investigated the role of the cervicovaginal microbiome (CVM) in the natural history of HR-HPV. This study was nested within the placebo arm of the Costa Rica HPV Vaccine Trial that included women aged 18-25 years of age. Cervical samples from two visits of women with an incident HR-HPV infection (n = 273 women) were used to evaluate the prospective role of the CVM on the natural history of HR-HPV. We focus specifically on infection clearance, persistence, and progression to cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and 3 (CIN2+). The CVM was characterized by amplification and sequencing the bacterial 16S V4 rRNA gene region and the fungal ITS1 region using an Illumina MiSeq platform. OTU clustering was performed using QIIME2. Functional groups were imputed using PICRUSt and statistical analyses were performed using R. At Visit 1 (V1) abundance of Lactobacillus iners was associated with clearance of incident HR-HPV infections (Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA)>4.0), whereas V1 Gardnerella was the dominant biomarker for HR-HPV progression (LDA>4.0). At visit 2 (V2), increased microbial Shannon diversity was significantly associated with progression to CIN2+ (p = 0.027). Multivariate mediation analysis revealed that the positive association of V1 Gardnerella with CIN2+ progression was due to the increased cervicovaginal diversity at V2 (p = 0.040). A full multivariate model of key components of the CVM showed significant protective effects via V1 genus Lactobacillus, OR = 0.41 (0.22-0.79), V1 fungal diversity, OR = 0.90 (0.82-1.00) and V1 functional Cell Motility pathway, OR = 0.75 (0.62-0.92), whereas V2 bacterial diversity, OR = 1.19 (1.03-1.38) was shown to be predictive of progression to CIN2+. This study demonstrates that features of the cervicovaginal microbiome are associated with HR-HPV progression in a prospective longitudinal cohort. The analyses indicated that the association of Gardnerella and progression to CIN2+ may actually be mediated by subsequent elevation of microbial diversity. Identified features of the microbiome associated with HR-HPV progression may be targets for therapeutic manipulation to prevent CIN2+. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00128661.

More than 10 years have elapsed since human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination was implemented. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of the population-level impact of vaccinating girls and women against human papillomavirus on HPV infections, anogenital wart diagnoses, and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ (CIN2+) to summarise the most recent evidence about the effectiveness of HPV vaccines in real-world settings and to quantify the impact of multiple age-cohort vaccination. In this updated systematic review and meta-analysis, we used the same search strategy as in our previous paper. We searched MEDLINE and Embase for studies published between Feb 1, 2014, and Oct 11, 2018. Studies were eligible if they compared the frequency (prevalence or incidence) of at least one HPV-related endpoint (genital HPV infections, anogenital wart diagnoses, or histologically confirmed CIN2+) between pre-vaccination and post-vaccination periods among the general population and if they used the same population sources and recruitment methods before and after vaccination. Our primary assessment was the relative risk (RR) comparing the frequency (prevalence or incidence) of HPV-related endpoints between the pre-vaccination and post-vaccination periods. We stratified all analyses by sex, age, and years since introduction of HPV vaccination. We used random-effects models to estimate pooled relative risks. We identified 1702 potentially eligible articles for this systematic review and meta-analysis, and included 65 articles in 14 high-income countries: 23 for HPV infection, 29 for anogenital warts, and 13 for CIN2+. After 5–8 years of vaccination, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 decreased significantly by 83% (RR 0·17, 95% CI 0·11–0·25) among girls aged 13–19 years, and decreased significantly by 66% (RR 0·34, 95% CI 0·23–0·49) among women aged 20–24 years. The prevalence of HPV 31, 33, and 45 decreased significantly by 54% (RR 0·46, 95% CI 0·33–0·66) among girls aged 13–19 years. Anogenital wart diagnoses decreased significantly by 67% (RR 0·33, 95% CI 0·24–0·46) among girls aged 15–19 years, decreased significantly by 54% (RR 0·46, 95% CI 0.36–0.60) among women aged 20–24 years, and decreased significantly by 31% (RR 0·69, 95% CI 0·53–0·89) among women aged 25–29 years. Among boys aged 15–19 years anogenital wart diagnoses decreased significantly by 48% (RR 0·52, 95% CI 0·37–0·75) and among men aged 20–24 years they decreased significantly by 32% (RR 0·68, 95% CI 0·47–0·98). After 5–9 years of vaccination, CIN2+ decreased significantly by 51% (RR 0·49, 95% CI 0·42–0·58) among screened girls aged 15–19 years and decreased significantly by 31% (RR 0·69, 95% CI 0·57–0·84) among women aged 20–24 years. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis includes data from 60 million individuals and up to 8 years of post-vaccination follow-up. Our results show compelling evidence of the substantial impact of HPV vaccination programmes on HPV infections and CIN2+ among girls and women, and on anogenital warts diagnoses among girls, women, boys, and men. Additionally, programmes with multi-cohort vaccination and high vaccination coverage had a greater direct impact and herd effects. WHO, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé.

Screening for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is more effective in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer than screening using Pap smears. Moreover, HPV testing can be done on a vaginal sample self-taken by a woman, which offers an opportunity to improve screening coverage. However, the clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples is not well-known. We assessed whether HPV testing on self-collected samples is equivalent to HPV testing on samples collected by clinicians. We identified relevant studies through a search of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they fulfilled all of the following selection criteria: a cervical cell sample was self-collected by a woman followed by a sample taken by a clinician; a high-risk HPV test was done on the self-sample (index test) and HPV-testing or cytological interpretation was done on the specimen collected by the clinician (comparator tests); and the presence or absence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or worse was verified by colposcopy and biopsy in all enrolled women or in women with one or more positive tests. The absolute accuracy for finding CIN2 or worse, or CIN grade 3 (CIN3) or worse of the index and comparator tests as well as the relative accuracy of the index versus the comparator tests were pooled using bivariate normal models and random effect models. We included data from 36 studies, which altogether enrolled 154 556 women. The absolute accuracy varied by clinical setting. In the context of screening, HPV testing on self-samples detected, on average, 76% (95% CI 69–82) of CIN2 or worse and 84% (72–92) of CIN3 or worse. The pooled absolute specificity to exclude CIN2 or worse was 86% (83–89) and 87% (84–90) to exclude CIN3 or worse. The variation of the relative accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples compared with tests on clinician-taken samples was low across settings, enabling pooling of the relative accuracy over all studies. The pooled sensitivity of HPV testing on self-samples was lower than HPV testing on a clinician-taken sample (ratio 0·88 [95% CI 0·85–0·91] for CIN2 or worse and 0·89 [0·83–0·96] for CIN3 or worse). Also specificity was lower in self-samples versus clinician-taken samples (ratio 0·96 [0·95–0·97] for CIN2 or worse and 0·96 [0·93–0·99] for CIN3 or worse). HPV testing with signal-based assays on self-samples was less sensitive and specific than testing on clinician-based samples. By contrast, some PCR-based HPV tests generally showed similar sensitivity on both self-samples and clinician-based samples. In screening programmes using signal-based assays, sampling by a clinician should be recommended. However, HPV testing on a self-sample can be suggested as an additional strategy to reach women not participating in the regular screening programme. Some PCR-based HPV tests could be considered for routine screening after careful piloting assessing feasibility, logistics, population compliance, and costs. The 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission, the Belgian Foundation against Cancer, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the German Guideline Program in Oncology.

Oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) infections cause most cases of cervical cancer. Here, we report long-term follow-up results for the Costa Rica Vaccine Trial (publicly funded and initiated before licensure of the HPV vaccines), with the aim of assessing the efficacy of the bivalent HPV vaccine for preventing HPV 16/18-associated cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+). Women aged 18–25 years were enrolled in a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial in Costa Rica, between June 28, 2004, and Dec 21, 2005, designed to assess the efficacy of a bivalent vaccine for the prevention of infection with HPV 16/18 and associated precancerous lesions at the cervix. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive an HPV 16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine or control hepatitis A vaccine. Vaccines were administered intramuscularly in three 0·5 mL doses at 0, 1, and 6 months and participants were followed up annually for 4 years. After the blinded phase, women in the HPV vaccine group were invited to enrol in the long-term follow-up study, which extended follow-up for 7 additional years. The control group received HPV vaccine and was replaced with a new unvaccinated control group. Women were followed up every 2 years until year 11. Investigators and patients were aware of treatment allocation for the follow-up phase. At each visit, clinicians collected cervical cells from sexually active women for cytology and HPV testing. Women with abnormal cytology were referred to colposcopy, biopsy, and treatment as needed. Women with negative results at the last screening visit (year 11) exited the long-term follow-up study. The analytical cohort for vaccine efficacy included women who were HPV 16/18 DNA-negative at vaccination. The primary outcome of this analysis was defined as histopathologically confirmed CIN2+ or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse associated with HPV 16/18 cervical infection detected at colposcopy referral. We calculated vaccine efficacy by year and cumulatively. This long-term follow-up study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00867464. 7466 women were enrolled in the Costa Rica Vaccine Trial; 3727 received the HPV vaccine and 3739 received the control vaccine. Between March 30, 2009, and July 5, 2012, 2635 women in the HPV vaccine group and 2836 women in the new unvaccinated control group were enrolled in the long-term follow-up study. 2635 women in the HPV vaccine group and 2677 women in the control group were included in the analysis cohort for years 0–4, and 2073 women from the HPV vaccine group and 2530 women from the new unvaccinated control group were included in the analysis cohort for years 7–11. Median follow-up time for the HPV group was 11·1 years (IQR 9·1–11·7), 4·6 years (4·3–5·3) for the original control group, and 6·2 years (5·5–6·9) for the new unvaccinated control group. At year 11, vaccine efficacy against incident HPV 16/18-associated CIN2+ was 100% (95% CI 89·2–100·0); 34 (1·5%) of 2233 unvaccinated women had a CIN2+ outcome compared with none of 1913 women in the HPV group. Cumulative vaccine efficacy against HPV 16/18-associated CIN2+ over the 11-year period was 97·4% (95% CI 88·0–99·6). Similar protection was observed against HPV 16/18-associated CIN3—specifically at year 11, vaccine efficacy was 100% (95% CI 78·8–100·0) and cumulative vaccine efficacy was 94·9% (73·7–99·4). During the long-term follow-up, no serious adverse events occurred that were deemed related to the HPV vaccine. The most common grade 3 or worse serious adverse events were pregnancy, puerperium, and perinatal conditions (in 255 [10%] of 2530 women in the unvaccinated control group and 201 [10%] of 2073 women in the HPV vaccine group). Four women in the unvaccinated control group and three in the HPV vaccine group died; no deaths were deemed to be related to the HPV vaccine. The bivalent HPV vaccine has high efficacy against HPV 16/18-associated precancer for more than a decade after initial vaccination, supporting the notion that invasive cervical cancer is preventable. US National Cancer Institute.

The quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine is effective in preventing infection and disease related to HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18. This phase 3 trial involving 14,000 women reports the efficacy of a 9-valent vaccine that targets additional HPV types. The human papillomavirus (HPV) causes premalignant and malignant lesions of the cervix, 1 , 2 vagina, 3 , 4 vulva, 4 , 5 anus, 4 , 6 penis, 7 and oropharynx, 8 as well as genital warts. 9 , 10 The recent development of prophylactic vaccines directed against the most relevant disease-causing HPV types has helped to prevent diseases related to HPV. 11 In clinical trials, the bivalent HPV viruslike particle vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18 was efficacious against related infection with these types and against cervical dysplasia, 12 and the quadrivalent HPV viruslike particle vaccine against types 6, 11, 16, and 18 was efficacious against related infection and against cervical, vaginal, . . .

An update to the American Cancer Society (ACS) guideline regarding screening for the early detection of cervical precancerous lesions and cancer is presented. The guidelines are based on a systematic evidence review, contributions from 6 working groups, and a recent symposium cosponsored by the ACS, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and the American Society for Clinical Pathology, which was attended by 25 organizations. The new screening recommendations address age-appropriate screening strategies, including the use of cytology and high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, follow-up (eg, the management of screen positives and screening intervals for screen negatives) of women after screening, the age at which to exit screening, future considerations regarding HPV testing alone as a primary screening approach, and screening strategies for women vaccinated against HPV16 and HPV18 infections. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

AbstractObjectivesTo replicate previous analyses on the effectiveness of the English human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme on incidence of cervical cancer and grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3) using 12 additional months of follow-up, and to investigate effectiveness across levels of socioeconomic deprivation.DesignObservational study.SettingEngland, UK.ParticipantsWomen aged 20-64 years resident in England between January 2006 and June 2020 including 29 968 with a diagnosis of cervical cancer and 335 228 with a diagnosis of CIN3. In England, HPV vaccination was introduced nationally in 2008 and was offered routinely to girls aged 12-13 years, with catch-up campaigns during 2008-10 targeting older teenagers aged <19 years.Main outcome measuresIncidence of invasive cervical cancer and CIN3.ResultsIn England, 29 968 women aged 20-64 years received a diagnosis of cervical cancer and 335 228 a diagnosis of CIN3 between 1 January 2006 and 30 June 2020. In the birth cohort of women offered vaccination routinely at age 12-13 years, adjusted age standardised incidence rates of cervical cancer and CIN3 in the additional 12 months of follow-up (1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020) were, respectively, 83.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 63.8% to 92.8%) and 94.3% (92.6% to 95.7%) lower than in the reference cohort of women who were never offered HPV vaccination. By mid-2020, HPV vaccination had prevented an estimated 687 (95% CI 556 to 819) cervical cancers and 23 192 (22 163 to 24 220) CIN3s. The highest rates remained among women living in the most deprived areas, but the HPV vaccination programme had a large effect in all five levels of deprivation. In women offered catch-up vaccination, CIN3 rates decreased more in those from the least deprived areas than from the most deprived areas (reductions of 40.6% v 29.6% and 72.8% v 67.7% for women offered vaccination at age 16-18 and 14-16, respectively). The strong downward gradient in cervical cancer incidence from high to low deprivation in the reference unvaccinated group was no longer present among those offered the vaccine.ConclusionsThe high effectiveness of the national HPV vaccination programme previously seen in England continued during the additional 12 months of follow-up. HPV vaccination was associated with a substantially reduced incidence of cervical cancer and CIN3 across all five deprivation groups, especially in women offered routine vaccination.

Programmed death ligand 1 (PD L1) expression can reduce the immune response in both infectious diseases and cancers. We thus examined PD L1 expression in cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CINs) and cancers since they each reflect infection by human papillomavirus (HPV). PD L1 protein was not evident by immunohistochemistry in histologically normal cervical epithelia (0/55) even when adjacent to CIN or cancer. PD L1 expression was much increased in CINs (20/21=95%) and cervical squamous cell cancer (56/70=80%) and localized to the dysplastic/neoplastic squamous cells and mononuclear cells, respectively. There was also a significant increase (each P <0.001) in PD L1 detection in mononuclear cells when comparing cervical squamous cell cancers to endometrial (22/115=19%) and ovarian adenocarcinomas (5/40=13%). Co-expression analyses showed that the primary inflammatory cell that contained PD L1 was the CD8+ lymphocyte that strongly concentrated around the dysplastic CIN cells and nests of invasive squamous cancer cells. These data show that PD L1 is a solid biomarker of productive HPV infection of the cervix and that it is significantly upregulated in both the carcinoma and surrounding inflammatory cells in cervical cancer when compared with other gynecologic malignancies. This suggests that anti-PD L1 therapy may have a role in the treatment of cervical cancer.

Cryotherapy is standard practice for treating patients with cervical precancer in see-and-treat programmes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Because of logistical difficulties with cryotherapy (eg, the necessity, costs, and supply chain difficulties of refrigerant gas; equipment failure; and treatment duration >10 min), a battery-operated thermal ablator that is lightweight and portable has been developed. We aimed to compare thermal ablation using the new device with cryotherapy. We report the pilot phase of a randomised controlled trial in routine screen-and-treat clinics providing cervical screening using visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) in Lusaka, Zambia. We recruited non-pregnant women, aged 25 years or older, who were eligible for ablative therapy. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to thermal ablation, cryotherapy, or large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ), using computer-generated allocation. The randomisation was concealed but the nurses providing treatment and the participants were unmasked. Thermal ablation was achieved using the Liger thermal ablator (using 1–5 overlapping applications of the probe heated to 100°C, each application lasting for 40 s), cryotherapy was carried out using the double-freeze technique (freeze for 3 min, thaw for 5 min, and freeze again for 3 min), and LLETZ (using a large loop driven by an electro-surgical unit to excise the transformation zone) was done under local anaesthesia. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as either human papillomavirus (HPV) type-specific clearance among participants who were positive for the same HPV type at baseline, or a negative VIA test at 6-month follow-up, if the baseline HPV test was negative. Per protocol analyses were done. Enrolment for the full trial is ongoing. Here, we present findings from a prespecified pilot phase of the full trial. The final analysis of the full trial will assess non-inferiority of the groups for the primary efficacy endpoint. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02956239. Between Aug 2, 2017, and Jan 15, 2019, 750 participants were randomly assigned (250 per group). 206 (84%) participants in the cryotherapy group, 197 (81%) in the thermal ablation group, and 204 (84%) in the LLETZ group attended the 6-month follow-up examination. Treatment success was reported in 120 (60%) of 200 participants in the cryotherapy group, 123 (64%) of 192 in the thermal ablation group, and 134 (67%) of 199 in the LLETZ group (p=0·31). Few participants complained of moderate to severe pain in any group immediately after the procedure (six [2%] of 250 in the cryotherapy group, four [2%] of 250 in the thermal ablation group, and five [2%] of 250 in the LLETZ group) and 2 weeks after the procedure (one [<1%] of 241 in the cryotherapy group, none of 242 in the thermal ablation group, and two [<1%] of 237 in the LLETZ group). None of the participants reported any complication requiring medical consultation or admission to hospital. Results from this pilot study preliminarily suggest that thermal ablation has similar treatment success to cryotherapy, without the practical disadvantages of providing cryotherapy in an LMIC. However, the study was not powered to establish the similarity between the techniques, and results from the ongoing randomised controlled trial are need to confirm these results. US National Institutes of Health.