-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Persistent infection with high-risk human papillomaviruses (hrHPV) types is causally linked with the development of cervical precancer and cancer. HPV types 16 and 18... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Persistent infection with high-risk human papillomaviruses (hrHPV) types is causally linked with the development of cervical precancer and cancer. HPV types 16 and 18 cause approximately 70% of cervical cancers worldwide.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the harms and protection of prophylactic human papillomaviruses (HPV) vaccines against cervical precancer and HPV16/18 infection in adolescent girls and women.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Embase (June 2017) for reports on effects from trials. We searched trial registries and company results' registers to identify unpublished data for mortality and serious adverse events.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing efficacy and safety in females offered HPV vaccines with placebo (vaccine adjuvants or another control vaccine).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used Cochrane methodology and GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for protection against cervical precancer (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and above [CIN2+], CIN grade 3 and above [CIN3+], and adenocarcinoma-in-situ [AIS]), and for harms. We distinguished between the effects of vaccines by participants' baseline HPV DNA status. The outcomes were precancer associated with vaccine HPV types and precancer irrespective of HPV type. Results are presented as risks in control and vaccination groups and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals in brackets.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 26 trials (73,428 participants). Ten trials, with follow-up of 1.3 to 8 years, addressed protection against CIN/AIS. Vaccine safety was evaluated over a period of 6 months to 7 years in 23 studies. Studies were not large enough or of sufficient duration to evaluate cervical cancer outcomes. All but one of the trials was funded by the vaccine manufacturers. We judged most included trials to be at low risk of bias. Studies involved monovalent (N = 1), bivalent (N = 18), and quadrivalent vaccines (N = 7). Most women were under 26 years of age. Three trials recruited women aged 25 and over. We summarize the effects of vaccines in participants who had at least one immunisation.Efficacy endpoints by initial HPV DNA statushrHPV negativeHPV vaccines reduce CIN2+, CIN3+, AIS associated with HPV16/18 compared with placebo in adolescent girls and women aged 15 to 26. There is high-certainty evidence that vaccines lower CIN2+ from 164 to 2/10,000 (RR 0.01 (0 to 0.05)) and CIN3+ from 70 to 0/10,000 (RR 0.01 (0.00 to 0.10). There is moderate-certainty evidence that vaccines reduce the risk of AIS from 9 to 0/10,000 (RR 0.10 (0.01 to 0.82).HPV vaccines reduce the risk of any CIN2+ from 287 to 106/10,000 (RR 0.37 (0.25 to 0.55), high certainty) and probably reduce any AIS lesions from 10 to 0/10,000 (RR 0.1 (0.01 to 0.76), moderate certainty). The size of reduction in CIN3+ with vaccines differed between bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines (bivalent: RR 0.08 (0.03 to 0.23), high certainty; quadrivalent: RR 0.54 (0.36 to 0.82), moderate certainty). Data in older women were not available for this comparison.HPV16/18 negativeIn those aged 15 to 26 years, vaccines reduce CIN2+ associated with HPV16/18 from 113 to 6 /10,000 (RR 0.05 (0.03 to 0.10). In women 24 years or older the absolute and relative reduction in the risk of these lesions is smaller (from 45 to 14/10,000, (RR 0.30 (0.11 to 0.81), moderate certainty). HPV vaccines reduce the risk of CIN3+ and AIS associated with HPV16/18 in younger women (RR 0.05 (0.02 to 0.14), high certainty and RR 0.09 (0.01 to 0.72), moderate certainty, respectively). No trials in older women have measured these outcomes.Vaccines reduce any CIN2+ from 231 to 95/10,000, (RR 0.41 (0.32 to 0.52)) in younger women. No data are reported for more severe lesions.Regardless of HPV DNA statusIn younger women HPV vaccines reduce the risk of CIN2+ associated with HPV16/18 from 341 to 157/10,000 (RR 0.46 (0.37 to 0.57), high certainty). Similar reductions in risk were observed for CIN3+ associated with HPV16/18 (high certainty). The number of women with AIS associated with HPV16/18 is reduced from 14 to 5/10,000 with HPV vaccines (high certainty).HPV vaccines reduce any CIN2+ from 559 to 391/10,000 (RR 0.70 (0.58 to 0.85, high certainty) and any AIS from 17 to 5/10,000 (RR 0.32 (0.15 to 0.67), high certainty). The reduction in any CIN3+ differed by vaccine type (bivalent vaccine: RR 0.55 (0.43 to 0.71) and quadrivalent vaccine: RR 0.81 (0.69 to 0.96)).In women vaccinated at 24 to 45 years of age, there is moderate-certainty evidence that the risks of CIN2+ associated with HPV16/18 and any CIN2+ are similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated women (RR 0.74 (0.52 to 1.05) and RR 1.04 (0.83 to 1.30) respectively). No data are reported in this age group for CIN3+ or AIS.Adverse effectsThe risk of serious adverse events is similar between control and HPV vaccines in women of all ages (669 versus 656/10,000, RR 0.98 (0.92 to 1.05), high certainty). Mortality was 11/10,000 in control groups compared with 14/10,000 (9 to 22) with HPV vaccine (RR 1.29 [0.85 to 1.98]; low certainty). The number of deaths was low overall but there is a higher number of deaths in older women. No pattern in the cause or timing of death has been established.Pregnancy outcomesAmong those who became pregnant during the studies, we did not find an increased risk of miscarriage (1618 versus 1424/10,000, RR 0.88 (0.68 to 1.14), high certainty) or termination (931 versus 838/10,000 RR 0.90 (0.80 to 1.02), high certainty). The effects on congenital abnormalities and stillbirths are uncertain (RR 1.22 (0.88 to 1.69), moderate certainty and (RR 1.12 (0.68 to 1.83), moderate certainty, respectively).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-certainty evidence that HPV vaccines protect against cervical precancer in adolescent girls and young women aged 15 to 26. The effect is higher for lesions associated with HPV16/18 than for lesions irrespective of HPV type. The effect is greater in those who are negative for hrHPV or HPV16/18 DNA at enrolment than those unselected for HPV DNA status. There is moderate-certainty evidence that HPV vaccines reduce CIN2+ in older women who are HPV16/18 negative, but not when they are unselected by HPV DNA status.We did not find an increased risk of serious adverse effects. Although the number of deaths is low overall, there were more deaths among women older than 25 years who received the vaccine. The deaths reported in the studies have been judged not to be related to the vaccine. Increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes after HPV vaccination cannot be excluded, although the risk of miscarriage and termination are similar between trial arms. Long-term of follow-up is needed to monitor the impact on cervical cancer, occurrence of rare harms and pregnancy outcomes.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Female; Human papillomavirus 16; Human papillomavirus 18; Humans; Middle Aged; Papillomavirus Infections; Papillomavirus Vaccines; Precancerous Conditions; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Vaccination; Young Adult; Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
PubMed: 29740819
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009069.pub3 -
International Journal of Cancer Dec 2022To inform optimal approaches for detecting anal precancers, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of anal cancer screening tests... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
To inform optimal approaches for detecting anal precancers, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of anal cancer screening tests in different populations with elevated risk for anal cancer. We conducted a literature search of studies evaluating tests for anal precancer and cancer (anal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse, AIN2+) published between January 1, 1997 to September 30, 2021 in PubMed and Embase. Titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion and included articles underwent full-text review, data abstraction and quality assessment. We estimated the prevalence of AIN2+ and calculated summary estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of test positivity, sensitivity and specificity and predictive values of various testing strategies, overall and among population subgroups. A total of 39 articles were included. The prevalence of AIN2+ was 20% (95% CI, 17-29%), and ranged from 22% in men who have sex with men (MSM) living with HIV to 13% in women and 12% in MSM without HIV. The sensitivity and specificity of cytology and HPV testing were 81% and 62% and 92% and 42%, respectively, and 93% and 33%, respectively for cytology and HPV co-testing. AIN2+ risks were similar among those testing positive for cytology, HPV, or co-testing. Limited data on other biomarkers (HPV E6/E7 mRNA and p16/Ki-67 dual stain), suggested higher specificity, but lower sensitivity compared with anal cytology and HPV. Our findings provide important evidence for the development of clinical guidelines using anal cytology and HPV testing for anal cancer screening.
Topics: Anus Neoplasms; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; HIV Infections; Homosexuality, Male; Humans; Ki-67 Antigen; Male; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections; RNA, Messenger; Sexual and Gender Minorities
PubMed: 35793241
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.34199 -
Vaccine Mar 2022A WHO global strategy launched in November 2020 sets out an ambitious pathway towards the worldwide elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem within the... (Review)
Review
A WHO global strategy launched in November 2020 sets out an ambitious pathway towards the worldwide elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem within the next 100 years. Achieving this goal will require investment in innovative approaches. This review aims to describe integrated approaches that combine human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and cervical cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), and their efficacy in increasing uptake of services. A systematic review was conducted analyzing relevant papers from Embase, Medline, CINAHL and CAB Global Health databases, as well as grey literature. Narrative synthesis was performed on the included studies. Meta-analysis was not appropriate due to the heterogeneity and nature of included studies. From 5,278 titles screened, 11 uncontrolled intervention studies from four countries (from Africa and east Asia) were included, all from the past 12 years. Four distinct typologies of integration emerged that either increased awareness of HPV and/or cervical cancer screening, and/or coupled the delivery of HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screening programs. The synthesis of findings suggests that existing HPV vaccination programs can be a useful pathway for educating mothers and other female caregivers about cervical cancer screening; through in person conversations with care providers (preferred) or take-home communications products. Integrated service delivery through outreach and mobile clinics may overcome geographic and economic barriers to access for both HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screening, however these require significant program and system resources. One study promoted HPV vaccination as part of integrated service delivery, but there were no other examples found that examined use of cervical cancer screening platforms to promote or educate on HPV vaccination. This review has demonstrated gaps in published literature on attempts to integrate HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screening. The most promising practices to date seem to relate to integrated health communications for cervical cancer prevention. Future research should further explore the opportunities for integrated health communications to support the efforts towards the new global cervical cancer elimination agenda, and costs and feasibility of integrated service delivery for underserved populations.
Topics: Cervix Uteri; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Papillomavirus Infections; Papillomavirus Vaccines; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Vaccination
PubMed: 34863615
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.11.013 -
Preventive Medicine Jan 2022An increasing body of evidence supports the validity of self-sampling as an alternative to clinician collection for primary Human Papillomavirus (HPV) screening....
An increasing body of evidence supports the validity of self-sampling as an alternative to clinician collection for primary Human Papillomavirus (HPV) screening. Self-sampling effectively reaches underscreened women and can be a powerful strategy in low- and high-resource settings for all target ages. This work aims to summarize the current use of HPV self-sampling worldwide. It is part of a larger project that describes cervical cancer screening programmes and produces standardized coverage estimates worldwide. A systematic review of the literature and official documents supplemented with a formal World Health Organisation country consultation was conducted. Findings show that the global use of HPV self-sampling is still limited. Only 17 (12%) of countries with identified screening programs recommend its use, nine as the primary collection method, and eight to reach underscreened populations. We identified 10 pilots evaluating the switch to self-sampling in well-established screening programs. The global use of self-sampling is likely to increase in the coming years. COVID-19's pandemic has prompted efforts to accelerate HPV self-sampling introduction globally, and it is now considered a key element in scaling up screening coverage. The information generated by the early experiences can be beneficial for decision-making in both new and existing programs.
Topics: COVID-19; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Humans; Mass Screening; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections; SARS-CoV-2; Self Care; Specimen Handling; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Vaginal Smears
PubMed: 34861338
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106900 -
Vaccine Sep 2020Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is essential for cervical cancer prevention. However, the value of HPV vaccination in the context excisional treatment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is essential for cervical cancer prevention. However, the value of HPV vaccination in the context excisional treatment of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 3) remains unclear.
METHODS
In this meta-analysis, three retrospective and three prospective studies, three post-hoc analyses of RCTs and one cancer registry study analysing the effect of pre- or post-conization vaccination (bi- or quadrivalent vaccine) against HPV were included after a systematic review of literature. Random-effect models were prepared to evaluate the influence of vaccination on recurrent CIN 2+.
RESULTS
Primary end point was CIN2+ in every study. The overall study population included 21,059 patients (3,939 vaccinations vs. 17,150 controls). The results showed a significant risk reduction for the development of new high-grade intraepithelial lesions after HPV vaccination (relative risk (RR) 0.41; 95% CI [0.27; 0.64]), independent from HPV type. Due to the heterogeneous study population multiple sub analyses regarding HPV type, age of patients, time of vaccination and follow-up were performed. Age-dependent analysis showed no differences between women under 25 years (RR 0.47 (95%-CI [0.28; 0.80]) and women of higher age (RR 0.52 (95%-CI [0.41; 0.65]). Results for HPV 16/18 positive CIN2+ showed a RR of 0.37 (95% CI [0.17; 0.80]). Overall, the number of women that would have to be vaccinated before or after conization to prevent one case of recurrent CIN 2+ (NNV) is 45.5.
CONCLUSION
Meta-analysis showed a significant risk reduction of developing recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after surgical excision and HPV vaccination compared to surgical excision only.
Topics: Adult; Conization; Female; Human papillomavirus 16; Human papillomavirus 18; Humans; Papillomavirus Infections; Papillomavirus Vaccines; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Vaccination
PubMed: 32762871
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.07.055 -
The Lancet. Global Health Feb 2021HIV enhances human papillomavirus (HPV)-induced carcinogenesis. However, the contribution of HIV to cervical cancer burden at a population level has not been quantified.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
HIV enhances human papillomavirus (HPV)-induced carcinogenesis. However, the contribution of HIV to cervical cancer burden at a population level has not been quantified. We aimed to investigate cervical cancer risk among women living with HIV and to estimate the global cervical cancer burden associated with HIV.
METHODS
We did a systematic literature search and meta-analysis of five databases (PubMed, Embase, Global Health [CABI.org], Web of Science, and Global Index Medicus) to identify studies analysing the association between HIV infection and cervical cancer. We estimated the pooled risk of cervical cancer among women living with HIV across four continents (Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America). The risk ratio (RR) was combined with country-specific UNAIDS estimates of HIV prevalence and GLOBOCAN 2018 estimates of cervical cancer to calculate the proportion of women living with HIV among women with cervical cancer and population attributable fractions and age-standardised incidence rates (ASIRs) of HIV-attributable cervical cancer.
FINDINGS
24 studies met our inclusion criteria, which included 236 127 women living with HIV. The pooled risk of cervical cancer was increased in women living with HIV (RR 6·07, 95% CI 4·40-8·37). Globally, 5·8% (95% CI 4·6-7·3) of new cervical cancer cases in 2018 (33 000 new cases, 95% CI 26 000-42 000) were diagnosed in women living with HIV and 4·9% (95% CI 3·6-6·4) were attributable to HIV infection (28 000 new cases, 20 000-36 000). The most affected regions were southern Africa and eastern Africa. In southern Africa, 63·8% (95% CI 58·9-68·1) of women with cervical cancer (9200 new cases, 95% CI 8500-9800) were living with HIV, as were 27·4% (23·7-31·7) of women in eastern Africa (14 000 new cases, 12 000-17 000). ASIRs of HIV-attributable cervical cancer were more than 20 per 100 000 in six countries, all in southern Africa and eastern Africa.
INTERPRETATION
Women living with HIV have a significantly increased risk of cervical cancer. HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screening for women living with HIV are especially important for countries in southern Africa and eastern Africa, where a substantial HIV-attributable cervical cancer burden has added to the existing cervical cancer burden.
FUNDING
WHO, US Agency for International Development, and US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alphapapillomavirus; Female; Global Burden of Disease; Global Health; HIV Infections; Humans; Middle Aged; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Young Adult
PubMed: 33212031
DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30459-9 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Aug 2021Only clinically validated HPV assays can be accepted in cervical cancer screening. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Only clinically validated HPV assays can be accepted in cervical cancer screening.
OBJECTIVES
To update the list of high-risk HPV assays that fulfil the 2009 international validation criteria (Meijer-2009).
DATA SOURCES
PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, references from selected studies; published in January 2014 to August 2020.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
HPV test validation studies and primary screening studies, involving testing with an index HPV test and a comparator HPV test with reporting of disease outcome (occurrence of histologically confirmed cervical precancer; CIN2+).
PARTICIPANTS
Women participating in cervical cancer screening.
INTERVENTIONS
Testing with an index and a comparator HPV test of clinician-collected cervical specimens and assessment of disease outcome (
METHODS
Assessment of relative clinical accuracy (including non-inferiority statistics index vs comparator assay) and test reproducibility in individual studies; random effects meta-analyses of the relative clinical sensitivity and specificity of index vs comparator tests.
RESULTS
Seven hrHPV DNA tests consistently fulfilled all validation criteria in multiple studies using predefined test positivity cut-offs (Abbott RealTime High Risk HPV, Anyplex II HPV HR Detection, BD Onclarity HPV Assay, Cobas 4800 HPV Test, HPV-Risk Assay, PapilloCheck HPV-Screening Test and Xpert HPV). Another assay (Alinity m HR HPV Assay) was fully validated in one validation study. The newer Cobas 6800 HPV Test, was validated in two studies against Cobas 4800. Other tests partially fulfilled the international validation criteria (Cervista HPV HR Test, EUROArray HPV, Hybribio's 14 High-Risk HPV, LMNX Genotyping Kit GP HPV, MALDI-TOF, RIATOL qPCR and a number of other in-house developed assays) since the non-inferior accuracy was reached after a posteriori cut-off optimization, inconsistent accuracy findings in different studies, and/or insufficient reproducibility assessment. The APTIMA HPV Assay targeting E6/E7 mRNA of hrHPV was fully validated in one formal validation study and showed slightly lower pooled sensitivity but higher specificity than the standard comparator tests in seven screening studies. However, the current international validation criteria relate to DNA assays. The additional requirement for longitudinal performance data required for non-DNA based HPV assays was not assessed in this review.
CONCLUSIONS
Eleven hrHPV DNA assays fulfil all requirements for use in cervical cancer screening using clinician-collected specimens.
Topics: Alphapapillomavirus; Early Detection of Cancer; Female; Genotyping Techniques; Humans; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 33975008
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.04.031 -
The Lancet. Oncology Apr 2023Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA and p16 positivity have crucial roles in the pathogenesis of vulvar cancer and vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia. We aimed to examine the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA and p16 positivity have crucial roles in the pathogenesis of vulvar cancer and vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia. We aimed to examine the pooled prevalence of HPV DNA and p16 positivity in vulvar cancer and vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia worldwide.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases for studies published between Jan 1, 1986, and May 6, 2022, that reported the prevalence of HPV DNA, or p16 positivity, or both, in histologically verified vulvar cancer or vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia. Studies on a minimum of five cases were included. Study-level data were extracted from the published studies. Random effect models were used to examine the pooled prevalence of HPV DNA and p16 positivity in both vulvar cancer and vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia, which were further investigated using stratified analyses by histological subtype, geographical region, HPV DNA or p16 detection method, tissue sample type, HPV genotype, publication year, and age at diagnosis. Additionally, meta-regression was applied to explore sources of heterogeneity.
FINDINGS
We retrieved 6393 search results, of which 6233 were excluded for being duplicates or after application of our inclusion and exclusion criteria. We also identified two studies from manual searches of references lists. 162 studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The prevalence of HPV in vulvar cancer (91 studies; n=8200) was 39·1% (95% CI 35·3-42·9) and in vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (60 studies; n=3140) was 76·1% (70·7-81·1). The most predominant HPV genotype in vulvar cancer was HPV16 (78·1% [95% CI 73·5-82·3]), followed by HPV33 (7·5% [4·9-10·7]). Similarly, HPV16 (80·8% [95% CI 75·9-85·2]) and HPV33 (6·3% [3·9-9·2]) were also the most two predominant HPV genotypes in vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia. The distribution of type-specific HPV genotypes in vulvar cancer among geographical regions was different, with HPV16 varying between regions, showing a high prevalence in Oceania (89·0% [95% CI 67·6-99·5]) and a low prevalence in South America (54·3% [30·2-77·4]). The prevalence of p16 positivity in patients with vulvar cancer was 34·1% (95% CI 30·9-37·4; 52 studies; n=6352), and it was 65·7% (52·5-77·7; 23 studies; n=896) in patients with vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia. Furthermore, among patients with HPV-positive vulvar cancer, p16 positivity prevalence was 73·3% (95% CI 64·7-81·2), compared with 13·8% (10·0-18·1) in HPV-negative vulvar cancer. The prevalence of double positivity for HPV and p16 was 19·6% (95% CI 16·3-23·0) in vulvar cancer and 44·2% (26·3-62·8) in vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia. Most analyses had large heterogeneity (I>75%).
INTERPRETATION
The high prevalence of HPV16 and HPV33 in vulvar cancer and vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia emphasised the importance of nine-valent HPV vaccination in preventing vulvar neoplasm. Additionally, this study highlighted the potential clinical significance of double positivity for HPV DNA and p16 in vulvar neoplasm.
FUNDING
Taishan Scholar Youth Project of Shandong Province, China.
Topics: Female; Humans; Adolescent; Vulvar Neoplasms; Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p16; Human Papillomavirus Viruses; DNA, Viral; Prevalence; Papillomavirus Infections; Carcinoma in Situ; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Papillomaviridae; Human papillomavirus 16
PubMed: 36933562
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00066-9 -
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Feb 2020Although local treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) are highly effective, it has been reported that treated women remain at increased risk of cervical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Incidence and mortality from cervical cancer and other malignancies after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.
BACKGROUND
Although local treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) are highly effective, it has been reported that treated women remain at increased risk of cervical and other cancers. Our aim is to explore the risk of developing or dying from cervical cancer and other human papillomavirus (HPV)- and non-HPV-related malignancies after CIN treatment and infer its magnitude compared with the general population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Eligibility criteria: Studies with registry-based follow-up reporting cancer incidence or mortality after CIN treatment.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Summary effects were estimated using random-effects models.
OUTCOMES
Incidence rate of cervical cancer among women treated for CIN (per 100 000 woman-years). Relative risk (RR) of cervical cancer, other HPV-related anogenital tract cancer (vagina, vulva, anus), any cancer, and mortality, for women treated for CIN versus the general population.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies were eligible. The incidence rate for cervical cancer after CIN treatment was 39 per 100 000 woman-years (95% confidence interval 22-69). The RR of cervical cancer was elevated compared with the general population (3.30, 2.57-4.24; P < 0.001). The RR was higher for women more than 50 years old and remained elevated for at least 20 years after treatment. The RR of vaginal (10.84, 5.58-21.10; P < 0.001), vulvar (3.34, 2.39-4.67; P < 0.001), and anal cancer (5.11, 2.73-9.55; P < 0.001) was also higher. Mortality from cervical/vaginal cancer was elevated, but our estimate was more uncertain (RR 5.04, 0.69-36.94; P = 0.073).
CONCLUSIONS
Women treated for CIN have a considerably higher risk to be later diagnosed with cervical and other HPV-related cancers compared with the general population. The higher risk of cervical cancer lasts for at least 20 years after treatment and is higher for women more than 50 years of age. Prolonged follow-up beyond the last screening round may be warranted for previously treated women.
Topics: Alphapapillomavirus; Female; Humans; Incidence; Middle Aged; Papillomavirus Infections; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
PubMed: 31959338
DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2019.11.004 -
Contraception Mar 2022Studies on the effect of long-term use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) on cervical dysplasia and/or cancer risk have been inconsistent. Less is known about the...
OBJECTIVE
Studies on the effect of long-term use of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) on cervical dysplasia and/or cancer risk have been inconsistent. Less is known about the effects of other forms of hormonal contraception (HC). We examine whether HC use increases the risk of incident cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2, 3 and/or cancer after accounting for preexisting human papillomavirus (HPV) infection.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review of prospective studies on HC use as risk factor for cervical dysplasia with HPV infection documented prior to outcome assessment including PubMed and EMBASE records between January 2000 and February 2020 (Prospero #CRD42019130725).
RESULTS
Among nine eligible studies, seven described recency and type of HC use and therefore comprise the primary analysis; two studies limit comparisons to ever versus never use and are summarized separately. All seven studies explored the relationship between oral contraceptive (OC) use and cervical dysplasia/cancer incidence: two found increased risk (adjusted odds ratio, aOR = 1.5-2.7), one found no association but decreased risk when restricted to women with persistent HPV (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.5), and four found no association. None of the seven studies differentiated between COC and progestin-only pills (POPs) by use recency or duration. The only study that included injectable progestin-only contraception (DMPA) found increased CIN3 incidence among current versus never users (aOR = 1.6). The one study that included Norplant found no association. Two studies included intrauterine device (IUD) use, but did not differentiate between hormonal and copper IUDs, and found no association.
CONCLUSION
We found no consistent evidence that OC use is associated with increased risk for cervical dysplasia/cancer after controlling for HPV infection. There were too few studies of progestin-only injectables, implants or IUDs to assess their effect on cervical dysplasia/cancer risk.
IMPLICATIONS
Use of single self-reported HC measures and insufficient distinction by hormonal constituent cloud our understanding of whether some HCs increase risk for cervical cancer. Methodologically rigorous studies with distinct HCs measured as time-varying exposures are needed to inform cervical cancer prevention efforts and improve our understanding of cervical cancer etiology.
Topics: Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal; Female; Hormonal Contraception; Humans; Papillomavirus Infections; Progestins; Prospective Studies; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
PubMed: 34752778
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2021.10.018