Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

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.

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.

Background Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is recommended in primary cervical screening to improve cancer prevention. An advantage of HPV testing is that it can be performed on self-samples, which could increase population coverage and result in a more efficient strategy to identify women at risk of developing cervical cancer. Our objective was to assess whether repeated self-sampling for HPV testing is cost-effective in comparison with Pap smear cytology for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more (CIN2+) in increasing participation rate in primary cervical screening. Methods A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed on data from a previously published randomized clinical study including 36,390 women aged 30–49 years. Participants were randomized either to perform repeated self-sampling of vaginal fluid for HPV testing ( n  = 17,997, HPV self-sampling arm) or to midwife-collected Pap smears for cytological analysis ( n  = 18,393, Pap smear arm). Results Self-sampling for HPV testing led to 1633 more screened women and 107 more histologically diagnosed CIN2+ at a lower cost vs. midwife-collected Pap smears (€ 229,446 vs. € 782,772). Conclusions This study resulted in that repeated self-sampling for HPV testing increased participation and detection of CIN2+ at a lower cost than midwife-collected Pap smears in primary cervical screening. Offering women a home-based self-sampling may therefore be a more cost-effective alternative than clinic-based screening. Trial registration Not registered since this trial is a secondary analysis of an earlier published study (Gustavsson et al., British journal of cancer. 118:896-904, 2018).

In women vaccinated against human papillomavirus (HPV), reductions in cervical disease and related procedures results in more women having intact transformation zones, potentially increasing the risk of cervical lesions caused by non-vaccine-preventable HPV types, a phenomenon termed clinical unmasking. We aimed to evaluate HPV vaccine efficacy against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) attributed to non-preventable HPV types in the long-term follow-up phase of the Costa Rica HPV Vaccine Trial (CVT). CVT was a randomised, double-blind, community-based trial done in Costa Rica. Eligible participants were women aged 18–25 years who were in general good health. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive an HPV 16 and 18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine or control hepatitis A vaccine, using a blocked randomisation method (permuted block sizes of 14, 16, and 18). Vaccines in both groups were administered intramuscularly with 0·5 mL doses at 0, 1, and 6 months. Masking of vaccine allocation was maintained throughout the 4-year randomised trial phase, after which participants in the hepatitis A virus vaccine control group were provided the HPV vaccine and exited the study; a screening-only, unvaccinated control group was enrolled. The unvaccinated control group and HPV vaccine group were followed up for 7 years, during which treatment allocation was not masked. One of the prespecified primary endpoints for the long-term follow-up phase was precancers associated with HPV types not prevented by the vaccine, defined as histologically confirmed incident CIN2+ events or CIN3+ events attributed to any HPV type except HPV 16, 18, 31, 33, and 45. Our primary analytical period was years 7–11. Primary analyses were in all participants with at least one follow-up visit and excluded participants with a previous endpoint (ie, modified intention-to-treat cohort). Safety endpoints have been reported elsewhere. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00128661 and NCT00867464. The randomised, masked trial phase is completed; an unmasked subset of women in the HPV-vaccinated group is under active investigation. Between June 28, 2004, and Dec 21, 2005, 7466 participants were enrolled (HPV vaccine group n=3727 and hepatitis A virus vaccine control group n=3739). Between March 30, 2009, and July 5, 2012, 2836 women enrolled in the new unvaccinated control group. The primary analytical cohort (years 7 to 11) included 2767 participants in the HPV vaccine group and 2563 in the unvaccinated group for the CIN2+ events endpoint assessment and 2826 participants in the HPV vaccine group and 2592 in the unvaccinated control group for the CIN3+ events endpoint assessment. Median follow-up during years 7 to 11 for women included for the CIN2+ events analysis was 52·8 months (IQR 44·0 to 60·7) for the HPV vaccine group and 49·8 months (42·0 to 56·9) for the unvaccinated control group. During years 7 to 11, clinical unmasking was observed with a negative vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ events attributed to non-preventable HPV types (–71·2% [95% CI –164·0 to –12·5]), with 9·2 (95% CI 2·1 to 15·6) additional CIN2+ events attributed to non-preventable HPV types per 1000 HPV-vaccinated participants versus HPV-unvaccinated participants. 27·0 (95% CI 14·2 to 39·9) fewer CIN2+ events irrespective of HPV type per 1000 vaccinated participants were observed during 11 years of follow-up. Vaccine efficacy against CIN3+ events attributed to non-preventable HPV types during years 7 to 11 was –135·0% (95% CI –329·8 to –33·5), with 8·3 (3·0 to 12·8) additional CIN3+ events attributed to non-preventable HPV types per 1000 vaccinated participants versus unvaccinated participants. Higher rates of CIN2+ events and CIN3+ events due to non-preventable HPV types in vaccinated versus unvaccinated participants suggests clinical unmasking could attenuate long-term reductions in high-grade disease following successful implementation of HPV vaccination programmes in screened populations. Importantly, the net benefit of vaccination remains considerable; therefore, HPV vaccination should still be prioritised as primary prevention for cervical cancer. National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women's Health. For the Spanish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

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, . . .

In four randomised trials, human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening for cervical cancer was compared with cytology-based cervical screening, and precursors of cancer were the endpoint in every trial. However, direct estimates are missing of the relative efficacy of HPV-based versus cytology-based screening for prevention of invasive cancer in women who undergo regular screening, of modifiers (eg, age) of this relative efficacy, and of the duration of protection. We did a follow-up study of the four randomised trials to investigate these outcomes. 176 464 women aged 20–64 years were randomly assigned to HPV-based (experimental arm) or cytology-based (control arm) screening in Sweden (Swedescreen), the Netherlands (POBASCAM), England (ARTISTIC), and Italy (NTCC). We followed up these women for a median of 6·5 years (1 214 415 person-years) and identified 107 invasive cervical carcinomas by linkage with screening, pathology, and cancer registries, by masked review of histological specimens, or from reports. Cumulative and study-adjusted rate ratios (experimental vs control) were calculated for incidence of invasive cervical carcinoma. The rate ratio for invasive cervical carcinoma among all women from recruitment to end of follow-up was 0·60 (95% CI 0·40–0·89), with no heterogeneity between studies (p=0·52). Detection of invasive cervical carcinoma was similar between screening methods during the first 2·5 years of follow-up (0·79, 0·46–1·36) but was significantly lower in the experimental arm thereafter (0·45, 0·25–0·81). In women with a negative screening test at entry, the rate ratio was 0·30 (0·15–0·60). The cumulative incidence of invasive cervical carcinoma in women with negative entry tests was 4·6 per 105 (1·1–12·1) and 8·7 per 105 (3·3–18·6) at 3·5 and 5·5 years, respectively, in the experimental arm, and 15·4 per 105 (7·9–27·0) and 36·0 per 105 (23·2–53·5), respectively, in the control arm. Rate ratios did not differ by cancer stage, but were lower for adenocarcinoma (0·31, 0·14–0·69) than for squamous-cell carcinoma (0·78, 0·49–1·25). The rate ratio was lowest in women aged 30–34 years (0·36, 0·14–0·94). HPV-based screening provides 60–70% greater protection against invasive cervical carcinomas compared with cytology. Data of large-scale randomised trials support initiation of HPV-based screening from age 30 years and extension of screening intervals to at least 5 years. European Union, Belgian Foundation Against Cancer, KCE-Centre d'Expertise, IARC, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, the Italian Ministry of Health.

Evidence on invasive cervical cancer prevention among older women is limited, especially with the introduction of human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening and longer interval. We conducted a long-term follow-up of the first phase of a randomized healthcare policy trial in cervical screening, targeting women aged 56 to 61 years old, to investigate the effectiveness of primary HPV-based screening in preventing invasive cervical cancer (ICC) and the safety of extending screening interval. The randomized healthcare policy trial of primary HPV-based cervical screening targeted women residing in Stockholm-Gotland region during 2012 to 2016, aged 30 to 64 years. The trial aimed to investigate the detection rate of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) within 24 months and long-term protection against invasive cervical cancer, comparing primary HPV-based screening to primary cytology-based screening. The initial phase of the trial, which was the focus of this study, targeted women aged 56 to 61 years old in 2012 to 2014 who were randomized to primary cytology arm (n = 7,401) or primary HPV arm (n = 7,318). We used national registries to identify the subsequent cervical tests and all histopathological diagnoses including ICC before December 31, 2022. We calculated cumulative incidence, incidence rate (IR) and IR ratio (IRR) of ICC, by baseline test result. Furthermore, we calculated longitudinal sensitivity and specificity for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) by receipt of primary cytology or primary HPV test for the recommended screening intervals in this age group. We found that the IR of ICC among women in the primary HPV arm was 7.2/100,000 person-years (py) and 3.0 for women who tested HPV negative, compared to 18.4/100,000 py among women in the primary cytology arm and 18.8 for women who tested cytology negative. We further found that the overall point estimate for the risk of ICC over 10 years of follow-up among women in the primary HPV arm was 0.39 compared to women in the primary cytology arm, but this was not statistically significant (IRR: 0.39; 95% confidence interval, CI [0.14, 1.09]; p = 0.0726). However, among women with a negative test result at baseline, women in the primary HPV arm had an 84% lower risk of ICC compared to women in the primary cytology arm (IRR: 0.16; 95% CI [0.04, 0.72]; p = 0.0163). Moreover, primary HPV testing had a higher sensitivity for detecting CIN2+ within a 7-year interval than primary cytology testing within a 5-year interval (89.6% versus 50.9%, p < 0.0001). We were limited by a partial imbalance of invitations during the follow-up between the 2 arms which may have led to an underestimation of the effectiveness of primary HPV-based screening. In this study, we observed that women over 55 years of age who received a primary negative HPV test result had substantially lower risk of CIN2+, and ICC, compared to women who received a primary negative cytology result. This should apply even if the screening interval were prolonged to 7 years. NCT01511328.

Testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA is reportedly more sensitive than cytology for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). The effectiveness of HPV testing in primary cervical screening was assessed in the ARTISTIC trial, which was done over two screening rounds approximately 3 years apart (2001–03 and 2004–07) by comparing liquid-based cytology (LBC) combined with HPV testing against LBC alone. Women aged 20–64 years who were undergoing routine screening as part of the English National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme in Greater Manchester were randomly assigned (between July, 2001, and September, 2003) in a ratio of 3:1 to either combined LBC and HPV testing in which the results were revealed and acted on, or to combined LBC and HPV testing where the HPV result was concealed from the patient and investigator. The primary outcome was the detection rate of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) in the second screening round, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN25417821. There were 24 510 eligible women at entry (18 386 in the revealed group, 6124 in the concealed group). In the first round of screening 233 women (1·27%) in the revealed group had CIN3+, compared with 80 (1·31%) women in the concealed group (odds ratio [OR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·75–1·25; p>0·2). There was an unexpectedly large drop in the proportion of women with CIN3+ between the first and second rounds of screening in both groups, at 0·25% (29 of 11 676) in the revealed group and 0·47% (18 of 3866 women) in the concealed group (OR 0·53, 95% CI 0·30–0·96; p=0·042). For both rounds combined, the proportion of women with CIN3+ were 1·51% (revealed) and 1·77% (concealed) (OR 0·85, 95% CI 0·67–1·08; p>0·2). LBC combined with HPV testing resulted in a significantly lower detection rate of CIN3+ in the second round of screening compared with LBC screening alone, but the effect was small. Over the two screening rounds combined, co-testing did not detect a higher rate of CIN3+ or CIN2+ than LBC alone. Potential changes in screening methodology should be assessed over at least two screening rounds. National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater (CIN2+) is the surrogate endpoint used in licensure trials of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines. Vaccine efficacy against CIN3+, the immediate precursor to invasive cervical cancer, is more difficult to measure because of its lower incidence, but provides the most stringent evidence of potential cancer prevention. We report vaccine efficacy against CIN3+ and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) in the end-of-study analysis of PATRICIA (PApilloma TRIal against Cancer In young Adults). Healthy women aged 15–25 years with no more than six lifetime sexual partners were included in PATRICIA, irrespective of their baseline HPV DNA status, HPV-16 or HPV-18 serostatus, or cytology. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive an HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine or a control hepatitis A vaccine via an internet-based central randomisation system using a minimisation algorithm to account for age ranges and study sites. The patients and study investigators were masked to allocated vaccine. The primary endpoint of PATRICIA has been reported previously. In the present end-of-study analysis, we focus on CIN3+ and AIS in the populations of most clinical interest, the total vaccinated cohort (TVC) and the TVC-naive. The TVC comprised all women who received at least one vaccine dose, approximating catch-up populations and including sexually active women (vaccine n=9319; control=9325). The TVC-naive comprised women with no evidence of oncogenic HPV infection at baseline, approximating early adolescent HPV exposure (vaccine n=5824; control=5820). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00122681. Vaccine efficacy against CIN3+ associated with HPV-16/18 was 100% (95% CI 85·5–100) in the TVC-naive and 45·7% (22·9–62·2) in the TVC. Vaccine efficacy against all CIN3+ (irrespective of HPV type in the lesion and including lesions with no HPV DNA detected) was 93·2% (78·9–98·7) in the TVC-naive and 45·6% (28·8–58·7) in the TVC. In the TVC-naive, vaccine efficacy against all CIN3+ was higher than 90% in all age groups. In the TVC, vaccine efficacy against all CIN3+ and CIN3+ associated with HPV-16/18 was highest in the 15–17 year age group and progressively decreased in the 18–20 year and 21–25 year age groups. Vaccine efficacy against all AIS was 100% (31·0–100) and 76·9% (16·0–95·8) in the TVC-naive and TVC, respectively. Serious adverse events occurred in 835 (9·0%) and 829 (8·9%) women in the vaccine and control groups, respectively; only ten events (0·1%) and five events (0·1%), respectively, were considered to be related to vaccination. PATRICIA end-of-study results show excellent vaccine efficacy against CIN3+ and AIS irrespective of HPV DNA in the lesion. Population-based vaccination that incorporates the HPV-16/18 vaccine and high coverage of early adolescents might have the potential to substantially reduce the incidence of cervical cancer. GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.