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

Self-reported oral hygiene habits among dental patients in Italy

Objective: The objective of this survey was to assess oral hygiene habits and compliance with guidelines for good oral health set forth by the Italian Ministry of Health (IMH). Subjects and Methods: A sample of 2,200 self-administered questionnaires was sent to four dental clinics across Italy to assess sociodemographic information, oral hygiene habits, frequency of dental visits and services received at previous visits among a population of adult patients. Results: Of the 2,200 questionnaires, 1,201 (54.6%) were returned. Findings showed that full compliance with the IMH recommendations was low (12%): a small number of patients (n = 223, 18.6%) visited a dentist every 6 months and only 256 (23.5%) brushed their teeth at least twice a day. Conclusion: Our data showed that regular attendance (at least 1 visit/year) at dental clinics for routine check-up and brushing teeth at least twice a day were poor. Therefore, we recommend that clinicians educate and motivate their patients about the benefits of healthy oral hygiene practices. Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel

Oral Cancer Knowledge: A Survey Administered to Patients in Dental Departments at Large Italian Hospitals

We assessed the oral cancer (OC) knowledge, including risk factors and clinical symptoms, among patients attending dental departments within Italian university hospitals. Two thousand and two hundred questionnaires were sent to four hospitals in order to assess patients' knowledge regarding clinical and epidemiological aspects of OC; OC knowledge was evaluated overall and stratified by oral cancer family history. Participants frequently identified cigarette smoking (87.8%) and heavy alcohol consumption (58.6%) as a risk factor for oral cancer, knew the clinical signs of OC (65-79% depending on the specific symptom) and reported that early detection was related to better prognosis of oral cancer (94%). Individuals with a positive family history for oral cancer were significantly more likely to identify risk factors for oral cancer correctly yet family history of OC did not affect smoking status. Less than 15% of patients reported having received OC counseling by a dentist or physician

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

10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.12.017VACCINE3861302-131

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

BACKGROUND: Human 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. OBJECTIVES: To 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 DESIGN: We 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. RESULTS: Median 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. CONCLUSION: We 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

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

No role for human papillomavirus in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China

Certain regions of China have high rates of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Previous studies of human papillomavirus (HPV), a proposed causal factor, have produced highly variable results. We attempted to evaluate HPV and ESCC more definitively using extreme care to prevent DNA contamination. We collected tissue and serum in China from 272 histopathologically-confirmed ESCC cases with rigorous attention to good molecular biology technique. We tested for HPV DNA in fresh-frozen tumor tissue using PCR with PGMY L1 consensus primers and HPV16 and 18 type-specific E6 and E7 primers, and in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue using SPF 10 L1 primers. In HPV-positive cases, we evaluated p16 INK4a overexpression and HPV E6/E7 seropositivity as evidence of carcinogenic HPV activity. β-globin, and thus DNA, was adequate in 98.2% of the frozen tumor tissues (267/272). Of these, 99.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 97.9–100.0%) were negative for HPV DNA by PGMY, and 100% (95% CI = 98.6–100%) were negative by HPV16/18 E6/E7 PCR. In the corresponding formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor specimens, 99.3% (95% CI = 97.3–99.9%) were HPV negative by SPF 10 . By PGMY, 1 case tested weakly positive for HPV89, a noncancer causing HPV type. By SPF 10 , 2 cases tested weakly positive: 1 for HPV16 and 1 for HPV31. No HPV DNA-positive case had evidence of HPV oncogene activity as measured by p16 INK4a overexpression or E6/E7 seropositivity. This study provides the most definitive evidence to date that HPV is not involved in ESCC carcinogenesis in China. HPV DNA contamination cannot be ruled out as an explanation for high HPV prevalence in ESCC tissue studies with less stringent tissue procurement and processing protocols