Risk Prediction for Breast, Endometrial, and Ovarian Cancer in White Women Aged 50 y or Older: Derivation and Validation from Population-Based Cohort Studies

Background: Breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers share some hormonal and epidemiologic risk factors. While several models predict absolute risk of breast cancer, there are few models for ovarian cancer in the general population, and none for endometrial cancer. Methods and Findings: Using data on white, non-Hispanic women aged 50+ y from two large population-based cohorts (the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial [PLCO] and the National Institutes of Health–AARP Diet and Health Study [NIH-AARP]), we estimated relative and attributable risks and combined them with age-specific US-population incidence and competing mortality rates. All models included parity. The breast cancer model additionally included estrogen and progestin menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) use, other MHT use, age at first live birth, menopausal status, age at menopause, family history of breast or ovarian cancer, benign breast disease/biopsies, alcohol consumption, and body mass index (BMI); the endometrial model included menopausal status, age at menopause, BMI, smoking, oral contraceptive use, MHT use, and an interaction term between BMI and MHT use; the ovarian model included oral contraceptive use, MHT use, and family history or breast or ovarian cancer. In independent validation data (Nurses' Health Study cohort) the breast and ovarian cancer models were well calibrated; expected to observed cancer ratios were 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96–1.04) for breast cancer and 1.08 (95% CI: 0.97–1.19) for ovarian cancer. The number of endometrial cancers was significantly overestimated, expected/observed = 1.20 (95% CI: 1.11–1.29). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs; discriminatory power) were 0.58 (95% CI: 0.57–0.59), 0.59 (95% CI: 0.56–0.63), and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.66–0.70) for the breast, ovarian, and endometrial models, respectively. Conclusions: These models predict absolute risks for breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers from easily obtainable risk factors and may assist in clinical decision-making. Limitations are the modest discriminatory ability of the breast and ovarian models and that these models may not generalize to women of other races. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summar

Evaluation of TypeSeq, a Novel High-Throughput, Low-Cost, Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Assay for Detection of 51 Human Papillomavirus Genotypes.

BackgroundHuman papillomaviruses (HPV) cause over 500 000 cervical cancers each year, most of which occur in low-resource settings. Human papillomavirus genotyping is important to study natural history and vaccine efficacy. We evaluated TypeSeq, a novel, next-generation, sequencing-based assay that detects 51 HPV genotypes, in 2 large international epidemiologic studies.MethodsTypeSeq was evaluated in 2804 cervical specimens from the Study to Understand Cervical Cancer Endpoints and Early Determinants (SUCCEED) and in 2357 specimens from the Costa Rica Vaccine Trial (CVT). Positive agreement and risks of precancer for individual genotypes were calculated for TypeSeq in comparison to Linear Array (SUCCEED). In CVT, positive agreement and vaccine efficacy were calculated for TypeSeq and SPF10-LiPA.ResultsWe observed high overall and positive agreement for most genotypes between TypeSeq and Linear Array in SUCCEED and SPF10-LiPA in CVT. There was no significant difference in risk of precancer between TypeSeq and Linear Array in SUCCEED or in estimates of vaccine efficacy between TypeSeq and SPF10-LiPA in CVT.ConclusionsThe agreement of TypeSeq with Linear Array and SPF10-LiPA, 2 well established standards for HPV genotyping, demonstrates its high accuracy. TypeSeq provides high-throughput, affordable HPV genotyping for world-wide studies of cervical precancer risk and of HPV vaccine efficacy

Efficacy and immunogenicity of a single dose of human papillomavirus vaccine compared to no vaccination or standard three and two-dose vaccination regimens: A systematic review of evidence from clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to systematically review the literature on the efficacy and immunogenicity of single-dose HPV vaccination compared to no vaccination or multi-dose schedules among vaccine trial participants. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, Global Health Database and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for publications and conference abstracts (dated January 1999-August 2018) using MeSH and non-MeSH terms for human papillomavirus AND vaccines AND (immunogenicity OR efficacy/effectiveness) AND dosage. Search results were screened against pre-specified eligibility criteria. Data were extracted from included articles, and a narrative synthesis conducted on efficacy against HPV16/18 infection and humoral immunogenicity. RESULTS: Seven of 6,523 unique records identified were included in the review. Six were nested observational studies of participants randomised to receive two or three doses in three large HPV vaccine trials, in which some participants did not complete their allocated schedules. One small pilot study prospectively allocated participants to receive one or no vaccine dose. Frequency of HPV16/18 infection was low (e.g.  0.05 in all cases). Frequency of infection was significantly lower in one-dose recipients compared to unvaccinated controls (p < 0.01 for all infection endpoints in each study). HPV16/18 seropositivity rates were high in all HPV vaccine recipients (100% in three of four studies reporting this endpoint), though antibody levels were lower with one compared to two or three doses. CONCLUSIONS: This review supports the premise that one HPV vaccine dose may be as effective in preventing HPV infection as multi-dose schedules in healthy young women. However, it also highlights the paucity of available evidence from purpose-designed, prospectively-randomised trials. Results from ongoing clinical trials assessing the efficacy and immunogenicity of single-dose HPV vaccination compared to currently-recommended schedules are awaited

Human papillomavirus vaccine effectiveness by number of doses: Updated systematic review of data from national immunization programs.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines were first licensed as a three-dose series. Two doses are now widely recommended in some age groups; there are data suggesting high efficacy with one dose. We updated a systematic literature review of HPV vaccine effectiveness by number of doses in observational studies. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase databases from January 1, 2007, through September 29, 2021. Data were extracted and summarized in a narrative synthesis. We also conducted quality assessments for bias due to selection, information, and confounding. RESULTS: Overall, 35 studies were included; all except one were conducted within the context of a recommended three-dose schedule. Evaluations were in countries that used bivalent HPV vaccine (seven), quadrivalent HPV vaccine (27) or both (one). Nine evaluated effectiveness against HPV infection, ten anogenital warts, and 16 cervical abnormalities. All studies were judged to have moderate or serious risk of bias. The biases rated as serious would likely result in lower effectiveness with fewer doses. Investigators attempted to control for or stratify by potentially important variables, such as age at vaccination. Eight studies evaluated impact of buffer periods (lag time) for case counting and 10 evaluated different intervals between doses for two-dose vaccine recipients. Studies that stratified by vaccination age found higher effectiveness with younger age at vaccination, although differences were not all formally tested. Most studies found highest estimates of effectiveness with three doses; significant effectiveness was found among 28/29 studies that evaluated three doses, 19/29 that evaluated two doses, and 18/30 that evaluated one dose. Some studies that adjusted or stratified analyses by age at vaccination found similar effectiveness with three, two and one doses. CONCLUSION: Observational studies of HPV vaccine effectiveness have many biases. Studies examining persons vaccinated prior to sexual activity and using methods to reduce sources of bias are needed for valid effectiveness estimates

Impact of human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and 18 vaccination on prevalent infections and rates of cervical lesions after excisional treatment

BackgroundHuman papillomavirus vaccines prevent human papillomavirus infection and cervical precancers. The impact of vaccinating women with a current infection or after treatment for an human papillomavirus-associated lesion is not fully understood.ObjectivesTo determine whether human papillomavirus-16/18 vaccination influences the outcome of infections present at vaccination and the rate of infection and disease after treatment of lesions.Study DesignWe included 1711 women (18−25 years) with carcinogenic human papillomavirus infection and 311 women of similar age who underwent treatment for cervical precancer and who participated in a community-based trial of the AS04-adjuvanted human papillomavirus-16/18 virus-like particle vaccine. Participants were randomized (human papillomavirus or hepatitis A vaccine) and offered 3 vaccinations over 6 months. Follow-up included annual visits (more frequently if clinically indicated), referral to colposcopy of high-grade and persistent low-grade lesions, treatment by loop electrosurgical excisional procedure when clinically indicated, and cytologic and virologic follow-up after treatment. Among women with human papillomavirus infection at the time of vaccination, we considered type-specific viral clearance, and development of cytologic (squamous intraepithelial lesions) and histologic (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia) lesions. Among treated women, we considered single-time and persistent human papillomavirus infection, squamous intraepithelial lesions, and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or greater. Outcomes associated with infections absent before treatment also were evaluated. Infection-level analyses were performed and vaccine efficacy estimated.ResultsMedian follow-up was 56.7 months (women with human papillomavirus infection) and 27.3 months (treated women). There was no evidence of vaccine efficacy to increase clearance of human papillomavirus infections or decrease incidence of cytologic/histologic abnormalities associated with human papillomavirus types present at enrollment. Vaccine efficacy for human papillomavirus 16/18 clearance and against human papillomavirus 16/18 progression from infection to cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or greater were −5.4% (95% confidence interval −19,10) and 0.3% (95% confidence interval −69,41), respectively. Among treated women, 34.1% had oncogenic infection and 1.6% had cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or greater detected after treatment, respectively, and of these 69.8% and 20.0% were the result of new infections. We observed no significant effect of vaccination on rates of infection/lesions after treatment. Vaccine efficacy estimates for human papillomavirus 16/18 associated persistent infection and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or greater after treatment were 34.7% (95% confidence interval −131, 82) and −211% (95% confidence interval −2901, 68), respectively. We observed evidence for a partial and nonsignificant protective effect of vaccination against new infections absent before treatment. For incident human papillomavirus 16/18, human papillomavirus 31/33/45, and oncogenic human papillomavirus infections post-treatment, vaccine efficacy estimates were 57.9% (95% confidence interval −43, 88), 72.9% (95% confidence interval 29, 90), and 36.7% (95% confidence interval 1.5, 59), respectively.ConclusionWe find no evidence for a vaccine effect on the fate of detectable human papillomavirus infections. We show that vaccination does not protect against infections/lesions after treatment. Evaluation of vaccine protection against new infections after treatment and resultant lesions warrants further consideration in future studies

Summary from an international cancer seminar focused on human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharynx cancer, convened by scientists at IARC and NCI

Cancer of the oropharynx has attracted considerable attention in recent years given: (1) an increasing incidence in selected populations over the past three decades; (2) the discovery of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection as the driver of the increase, as opposed to the traditional risk factors such as tobacco (smoking and chewing) and alcohol; and (3) the promise of new prevention and treatment strategies. As a result of such developments, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the US National Cancer Institute (NCI), convened the fourth Cancer Seminar meeting in November 2018 to focus on this topic. This report summarizes the proceedings: a review of recent science on the descriptive epidemiology, etiology, biology, genetics, early detection, pathology and treatment of HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer, and the formulation of key research questions to be addressed

Comparing one dose of HPV vaccine in girls aged 9-14 years in Tanzania (DoRIS) with one dose of HPV vaccine in historical cohorts: an immunobridging analysis of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines are given as a two-dose schedule in children aged 9-14 years, or as three doses in older individuals. We compared antibody responses after one dose of HPV vaccine in the Dose Reduction Immunobridging and Safety Study (DoRIS), a randomised trial of different HPV vaccine schedules in Tanzania, to those from two observational HPV vaccine trials that found high efficacy of one dose up to 11 years against HPV16 and HPV18 (Costa Rica Vaccine Trial [CVT] and Institutional Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC] India trial). METHODS: In this immunobridging analysis of an open-label randomised controlled trial, girls were recruited from 54 government schools in Mwanza, Tanzania, into the DoRIS trial. Girls were eligible if they were aged 9-14 years, healthy, and HIV negative. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1), using permutated block sizes of 12, 18, and 24, to one, two, or three doses of the 2-valent vaccine (Cervarix, GSK Biologicals, Rixensart, Belgium) or the 9-valent vaccine (Gardasil 9, Sanofi Pasteur MSD, Lyon, France). For this immunobridging analysis, the primary objective was to compare geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) at 24 months after one dose in the per-protocol population compared with in historical cohorts: the one-dose 2-valent vaccine group in DoRIS was compared with recipients of the 2-valent vaccine Cervarix from CVT and the one-dose 9-valent vaccine group in DoRIS was compared with recipients of the 4-valent vaccine Gardasil (Merck Sharp & Dohme, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) from the IARC India trial. Samples were tested together with virus-like particle ELISA for HPV16 and HPV18 IgG antibodies. Non-inferiority of GMC ratios (DoRIS trial vs historical cohort) was predefined as when the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than 0·50. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02834637. FINDINGS: Between Feb 23, 2017, and Jan 6, 2018, we screened 1002 girls for eligibility, of whom 930 were enrolled into DoRIS and 155 each were assigned to one dose, two doses, or three doses of 2-valent vaccine, or one dose, two doses, or three doses of 9-valent vaccine. 154 (99%) participants in the one-dose 2-valent vaccine group (median age 10 years [IQR 9-12]) and 152 (98%) in the one-dose 9-valent vaccine group (median age 10 years [IQR 9-12]) were vaccinated and attended the 24 month visit, and so were included in the analysis. 115 one-dose recipients from the CVT (median age 21 years [19-23]) and 139 one-dose recipients from the IARC India trial (median age 14 years [13-16]) were included in the analysis. At 24 months after vaccination, GMCs for HPV16 IgG antibodies were 22·9 international units (IU) per mL (95% CI 19·9-26·4; n=148) for the DoRIS 2-valent vaccine group versus 17·7 IU/mL (13·9-22·5; n=97) for the CVT (GMC ratio 1·30 [95% CI 1·00-1·68]) and 13·7 IU/mL (11·9-15·8; n=145) for the DoRIS 9-valent vaccine group versus 6·7 IU/mL (5·5-8·2; n=131) for the IARC India trial (GMC ratio 2·05 [1·61-2·61]). GMCs for HPV18 IgG antibodies were 9·9 IU/mL (95% CI 8·5-11·5: n=141) for the DoRIS 2-valent vaccine group versus 8·0 IU/mL (6·4-10·0; n=97) for the CVT trial (GMC ratio 1·23 [95% CI 0·95-1·60]) and 5·7 IU/mL (4·9-6·8; n=136) for the DoRIS 9-valent vaccine group versus 2·2 IU/mL (1·9-2·7; n=129) for the IARC India trial (GMC ratio 2·12 [1·59-2·83]). Non-inferiority of antibody GMCs was met for each vaccine for both HPV16 and HPV18. INTERPRETATION: One dose of HPV vaccine in young girls might provide sufficient protection against persistent HPV infection. A one-dose schedule would reduce costs, simplify vaccine delivery, and expand access to the vaccine. FUNDING: UK Department for International Development/UK Medical Research Council/Wellcome Trust Joint Global Health Trials Scheme, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the US National Cancer Institute. TRANSLATION: For the KiSwahili translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section

Evidence for single-dose protection by the bivalent HPV vaccine-Review of the Costa Rica HPV vaccine trial and future research studies.

The Costa Rica Vaccine Trial (CVT), a phase III randomized clinical trial, provided the initial data that one dose of the HPV vaccine could provide durable protection against HPV infection. Although the study design was to administer all participants three doses of HPV or control vaccine, 20% of women did not receive the three-dose regimens, mostly due to involuntary reasons unrelated to vaccination. In 2011, we reported that a single dose of the bivalent HPV vaccine could be as efficacious as three doses of the vaccine using the endpoint of persistent HPV infection accumulated over the first four years of the trial; findings independently confirmed in the GSK-sponsored PATRICIA trial. Antibody levels after one dose, although lower than levels elicited by three doses, were 9-times higher than levels elicited by natural infection. Importantly, levels remained essentially constant over at least seven years, suggesting that the observed protection provided by a single dose might be durable. Much work has been done to assure these non-randomized findings are valid. Yet, the group of recipients who received one dose of the bivalent HPV vaccine in the CVT and PATRICIA trials was small and not randomly selected nor blinded to the number of doses received. The next phase of research is to conduct a formal randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the protection afforded by a single dose of HPV vaccine. Complementary studies are in progress to bridge our findings to other populations, and to further document the long-term durability of antibody response following a single dose