Prevalence of Human Papillomavirus Among Females After Vaccine Introduction—National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, United States, 2003–2014

Oliver, Sara E.; Unger, Elizabeth R.; Lewis, Rayleen M; McDaniel, Darius; Gargano, Julia W.; Steinau, Martin; Markowitz, Lauri E.

doi:10.1093/infdis/jix244

Cited by 127 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, from a screening laboratory operational perspective, HPV assays with extended genotyping for cervical cancer screening are already available, and these assays have the capacity for returning detailed genotype results on an HPV‐positive sample without further analysis required. On the other hand, assays with limited genotyping reporting HPV16 and 18 individually combined with bulk detection of the remaining hrHPV genotypes will have limited value in such strategy as well as in screening populations with increasing proportions of HPV16/18 vaccinated women reducing the assay to a simple hrHPV “yes/no” assay …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, assays with limited genotyping reporting HPV16 and 18 individually combined with bulk detection of the remaining hrHPV genotypes will have limited value in such strategy as well as in screening populations with increasing proportions of HPV16/18 vaccinated women reducing the assay to a simple hrHPV "yes/no" assay. [44][45][46][47][48]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bayesian analysis of baseline risk of CIN2 and ≥CIN3 by HPV genotype in a European referral cohort

Bonde

Bottari

Parvu

et al. 2019

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whereas HPV16 and HPV18 have been the focus in current risk‐based cervical cancer screening algorithms using HPV genotype information, mounting evidence suggests that oncogenic HPV types such as HPV31, 33, 52 and 58 pose a ≥CIN3 risk equivalent to or greater than that of HPV18, and the combined risk of HPV31 and HPV33 rivals even HPV16 in women above 30 years of age. Here, we evaluate the baseline risk of CIN2 and CIN3 by genotype in a colposcopy referral population from Denmark and Italy. In total, 655 women were enrolled upon a referral to colposcopy after a positive screening sample. All samples were HPV analyzed using Onclarity HPV assay with extended genotyping and combined with the histology outcomes, a Bayesian probability modeling was used to determine the risk per genotype assessed. The combined data for this referral population showed that the ≥CIN2 risk of HPV16 was 69.1%, HPV31 at 63.3%, HPV33/58 at 52.7%, HPV18 at 46.6% and HPV52 at 40.8%. For ≥CIN3, the risks were 44.3%, 38.5%, 36.8%, 30.9% and 16.8% for HPV16, HPV31, HPV18, HPV33/58 and HPV52, respectively, indicating that the baseline risk of disease arising from HPV16 is, not surprisingly, the highest among the oncogenic HPV genotypes. We find that the HPV genotype‐specific ≥CIN2 and ≥CIN3 risk‐patterns are so distinct that, for example, 35/39/68 and 56/59/66 should be considered only for low intensive follow‐up, thereby proposing active use of this information in triage strategies for screening HPV‐positive women.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bayesian analysis of baseline risk of CIN2 and ≥CIN3 by HPV genotype in a European referral cohort

Bonde

Bottari

Parvu

et al. 2019

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Scotland, unvaccinated women born in 1995 were less often HPV16/18 positive at their first cervical screening compared to women born in 1988 who were not eligible for vaccination (5.3% versus 30%) . Also in Australia and the United States, decreases in the vaccine type prevalence have been recorded among unvaccinated women . There are several possible explanations for the absence of a declining trend among unvaccinated women in our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…Third, the time horizon of our study (6 years postvaccination) might be too short to observe second‐order herd effects. In the United States, where vaccination coverage was also limited, decreases in vaccine type prevalence among unvaccinated women were noted 5–8 years after vaccine introduction and not yet after 3–6 years …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of herd effects among women and heterosexual men after girls‐only HPV16/18 vaccination in the Netherlands: A repeated cross‐sectional study

Woestenberg

Bogaards

King

et al. 2018

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data on the impact of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination on the population HPV prevalence are largely obtained from women. We assessed the impact of the girls‐only HPV16/18 vaccination program in the Netherlands that started in 2009, on trends in HPV prevalence among women and heterosexual men, using data from the PASSYON study. In this cross‐sectional study, the HPV prevalence among 16‐ to 24‐year‐old visitors to sexually transmitted infection clinics was assessed in 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015. We compared the genital postvaccination HPV prevalence with the prevaccination prevalence (2009) using Poisson GEE models. In total, we included 4,996 women and 1,901 heterosexual men. The percentage of women who reported to be vaccinated increased from 2.3% in 2009 to 37% in 2015. Among all women, the HPV16/18 prevalence decreased from 23% prevaccination to 15% in 2015 (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 0.62, p trend < 0.01). Among heterosexual men, the HPV16/18 prevalence decreased from 17% prevaccination to 11% in 2015 (aPR 0.52, p trend < 0.01). Of the heterosexual men with a steady partner, HPV16/18 prevalence was lower among those whose steady partner had been vaccine‐eligible in the national immunization program (aPR 0.13). Among unvaccinated women, the HPV16/18 prevalence in 2015 was not different from prevaccination. The decreasing HPV16/18 prevalence among heterosexual men and the reduced HPV16/18 prevalence among heterosexual men with a vaccine‐eligible steady partner strongly suggests herd protection from girls‐only vaccination. Absence of notable herd effects among unvaccinated women 6 years postvaccination may be due to the moderate vaccine uptake among girls in the Netherlands.

show abstract

“…Self-collected samples can be brought or mailed to a clinic or to a screening program testing site. Self-sampling enables ongoing large-scale monitoring of the prevalence of hpv infection 18 , an essential component of epidemiologic surveillance of the impact of hpv vaccination in the population.…”

Section: El Franco Mph Drph Frsc Fcahs Ocmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: Empowering Women to Lead a Paradigm Change in Cancer Control

Franco

2018

Current Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this new era of precision medicine and patient-centred care, the advent of self-sampling in cervical cancer screening is among the most disruptive innovations in cancer control and prevention. However, it has taken a long time to mature as an idea. The concept of self-sampling with swabs or brushes as a reliable substitute for providercollected cervical specimens has been the focus of at least 25 years of research. Although obtaining an adequate cytology specimen for cervical cancer screening served as the initial rationale 1 , it was the pragmatic goal of obtaining repeated samples for studying the natural history of genital human papillomavirus infection that drove much of this research 2,3 . The original aim of making the experience of participating in cervical cancer screening less daunting to women failed to be realized initially because the tradeoff between convenience to the woman and quality of the cervical sample was far from ideal.Given that it is an intuitively simple and attractive idea, why did it take so long for self-sampling to mature as a technological innovation? During most of the last 70 years, cervical cancer screening has been based on the Papanicolaou (Pap) cytology technique, which relies on the microscopic identification by a cytotechnician or cytopathologist of cellular abnormalities in optimally stained cervical samples smeared on glass slides. These samples must be representative of the ecto-and endocervix to be deemed adequate. For this to happen, a properly trained health care provider, i.e., a physician or nurse, must use a speculum to visualize the cervical os and transformation zone and collect cellular samples from the inner and outer perimeter of the latter using devices such as a wooden spatula, cytobrush, or broom-like device. The transformation zone perimeter is the origin of most neoplastic cervical lesions. Samples that do not properly reflect the cellular composition of the ecto-and endocervix are thus likely to yield false-negative cytology results in women with precancerous or cancerous lesions. Exceptionally, a cytotechnician reading such a Pap smear with meticulous attention to detail may fortuitously find an isolated cluster of dysplastic or malignant cells. However, an exhaustive smear scanning takes time. In the high-volume routine of most cytopathology laboratories, not more than a few minutes are spent per slide, which makes sample quality paramount in cervical cancer screening via cytology. The advent of liquid-based cytology improved the efficiency and ease of smear processing and reading but did not eliminate the need for a speculum-assisted and properly collected cervical sample by a health care provider. It is thus of no surprise that under the stringent quality control of specimen adequacy for cytology screening self-sampling never became much of a promise.The advent of molecular testing for nucleic acid of oncogenic genotypes of human papillomavirus (hpv) made self-sampling an attractive idea for cervical cancer screening again. Clinically validated hpv...

show abstract

Prevalence of Human Papillomavirus Among Females After Vaccine Introduction—National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, United States, 2003–2014

Cited by 127 publications

References 25 publications

Bayesian analysis of baseline risk of CIN2 and ≥CIN3 by HPV genotype in a European referral cohort

Bayesian analysis of baseline risk of CIN2 and ≥CIN3 by HPV genotype in a European referral cohort

Assessment of herd effects among women and heterosexual men after girls‐only HPV16/18 vaccination in the Netherlands: A repeated cross‐sectional study

Self-Sampling for Cervical Cancer Screening: Empowering Women to Lead a Paradigm Change in Cancer Control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About