-
Asian Journal of Andrology 2019Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection appears to play an important role in the development of penile cancer (PeCa), but their relationship remains unclear. Therefore, we... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection appears to play an important role in the development of penile cancer (PeCa), but their relationship remains unclear. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to elucidate their relationship. We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for case-control studies and cross-sectional studies using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) or paraffin-embedded (PE) PeCa tissues to detect HPV (published between January 1, 2007, and December 29, 2017; no language restrictions). Twenty-two studies were identified, and 1664 cases were available for analysis. The combined HPV infectious risk of PeCa is 51.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43.0%-60.0%). The three most common subtypes of HPV were HPV16 (28.5%), HPV18 (2.3%), and HPV6 (2.3%). The virus was relevantly associated with basaloid (85.5%, 95% CI: 77.2%-93.8%) and warty (50.0%, 95% CI: 35.2%-64.8%) carcinomas. The invasiveness of PeCa was not associated with HPV (χ = 0.181, df = 1, P < 0.671). HPV infection in PeCa tended to be moderately differentiated (54.4%, 95% CI: 47.7%-61.1%). This study found that almost half of PeCa patients are associated with HPV. The most commonly associated genotype is HPV16, but several other genotypes were also detected. In addition to types 6 and 11, other single low-risk HPV infections have been found to contribute to PeCa to a lesser degree. HPV-positive tumors tend to exhibit warty and/or basaloid features, corresponding to a moderate histological grade. The role of HPV in PeCa should be revisited to provide evidence for the development of PeCa in the presence of HPV infection.
Topics: Humans; Male; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections; Penile Neoplasms; Risk Factors
PubMed: 31134917
DOI: 10.4103/aja.aja_39_19 -
Sexual Medicine Jun 2019Women's choices for a sexual partner are influenced by numerous personal, cultural, social, political and religious factors, and may also include aspects of penile... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Women's choices for a sexual partner are influenced by numerous personal, cultural, social, political and religious factors, and may also include aspects of penile anatomy such as male circumcision (MC) status.
AIM
To perform a systematic review examining (i) whether MC status influences women's preference for sexual activity and the reasons for this, and (ii) whether women prefer MC for their sons.
METHODS
PRISMA-compliant searches were conducted of PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Articles that met the inclusion criteria were rated for quality using the SIGN system.
RESULTS
Database searches identified 29 publications with original data for inclusion, including 22 for aim (i) and 4 of these and 7 others pertaining to aim (ii). In the overwhelming majority of studies, women expressed a preference for the circumcised penis. The main reasons given for this preference were better appearance, better hygiene, reduced risk of infection, and enhanced sexual activity, including vaginal intercourse, manual stimulation, and fellatio. In studies that assessed mothers' preference for MC of sons, health, disease prevention, and hygiene were cited as major reasons for this preference. Cultural differences in preference were evident among some of the studies examined. Nevertheless, a preference for a circumcised penis was seen in most populations regardless of the frequency of MC in the study setting.
CONCLUSION
Women's preferences generally favor the circumcised penis for sexual activity, hygiene, and lower risk of infection. The findings add to the already well-established health benefits favoring MC and provide important sociosexual information on an issue of widespread interest. Morris BJ, Hankins CA, Lumbers ER, et al. Sex and Male Circumcision: Women's Preferences Across Different Cultures and Countries: A Systematic Review. Sex Med 2019;7:145-161.
PubMed: 31031121
DOI: 10.1016/j.esxm.2019.03.003 -
The Lancet. Global Health Apr 2019Men who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately affected by HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) worldwide. Previous reviews investigating the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Men who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately affected by HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) worldwide. Previous reviews investigating the role of circumcision in preventing HIV and other STIs among MSM were inconclusive. Many new studies have emerged in the past decade. To inform global prevention strategies for HIV and other STIs among MSM, we reviewed all available evidence on the associations between circumcision and HIV and other STIs among MSM.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, BioMed Central, Scopus, ResearchGate, Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, and websites of international HIV and STI conferences for studies published before March 8, 2018. Interventional or observational studies containing original quantitative data describing associations between circumcision and incident or prevalent infection of HIV and other STIs among MSM were included. Studies were excluded if MSM could not be distinguished from men who have sex with women only. We calculated pooled odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% CIs using random-effect models. We assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
FINDINGS
We identified 62 observational studies including 119 248 MSM. Circumcision was associated with 23% reduced odds of HIV infection among MSM overall (OR 0·77, 95% CI 0·67-0·89; number of estimates [k]=45; heterogeneity I=77%). Circumcision was protective against HIV infection among MSM in countries of low and middle income (0·58, 0·41-0·83; k=23; I=77%) but not among MSM in high-income countries (0·99, 0·90-1·09; k=20; I=40%). Circumcision was associated with reduced odds of herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection among MSM overall (0·84, 0·75-0·95; k=5; I=0%) and penile human papillomavirus (HPV) infection among HIV-infected MSM (0·71, 0·51-0·99; k=3; I=0%).
INTERPRETATION
We found evidence that circumcision is likely to protect MSM from HIV infection, particularly in countries of low and middle income. Circumcision might also protect MSM from HSV and penile HPV infection. MSM should be included in campaigns promoting circumcision among men in countries of low and middle income. In view of the substantial proportion of MSM in countries of low and middle income who also have sex with women, well designed longitudinal studies differentiating MSM only and bisexual men are needed to clarify the effect of circumcision on male-to-male transmission of HIV and other STIs.
FUNDING
National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Science and Technology Major Project of China, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Fellowship, Sanming Project of Medicine in Shenzhen, National Institutes of Health, Mega Projects of National Science Research for the 13th Five-Year Plan, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation.
Topics: Circumcision, Male; HIV Infections; Herpes Simplex; Homosexuality, Male; Humans; Male; Sexual Behavior; Sexually Transmitted Diseases
PubMed: 30879508
DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30567-9 -
British Journal of Cancer Jan 2019High-risk human papilloma viruses (HPV) are a causative agent of anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers. Patients treated for a preinvasive or invasive HPV-associated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
High-risk human papilloma viruses (HPV) are a causative agent of anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers. Patients treated for a preinvasive or invasive HPV-associated cancer may be at increased risk of a second such malignancy.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and random effects meta-analysis to estimate the risk of HPV-associated cancer after prior diagnosis. Studies reporting second cancers at anogenital and oropharyngeal sites after prior diagnoses (preinvasive/invasive HPV-associated cancer) were identified. Studies reporting standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) were included in formal meta-analyses of second cancer risk. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42016046974).
RESULTS
Searches returned 5599 titles, including 60 unique, eligible studies. Thirty-two (98 comparisons) presented SIRs for second cervical, anal, vulvo-vaginal, penile, and/or oropharyngeal cancers, included in the meta-analyses. All studies (and 95/98 comparisons) reported increased cancers in the population with previous HPV-associated cancer when compared to controls. Pooled SIRs for second primary cancers ranged from 1.75 (95% CI 0.66-4.67) for cervical cancer after primary anal cancer, to 13.69 (95% CI 8.56-21.89) for anal cancer after primary vulvo-vaginal cancer.
CONCLUSIONS
We have quantified the increased risk of second HPV-associated cancer following diagnosis and treatment for initial cancer or preinvasive disease. This has important implications for follow-up, screening, and future therapeutic trials.
Topics: Anus Neoplasms; Carcinoma in Situ; Female; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Male; Neoplasms, Second Primary; Oropharyngeal Neoplasms; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections; Penile Neoplasms; Risk Factors; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Vaginal Neoplasms; Vulvar Neoplasms
PubMed: 30482913
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-018-0273-9 -
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer... Sep 2018Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is associated with cervical cancer; however, it is controversial whether it is involved in non-cervical genital cancers.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is associated with cervical cancer; however, it is controversial whether it is involved in non-cervical genital cancers. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate articles on the prevalence of HPV in penile cancer, vulvar cancer, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer and anal canal cancer in studies conducted in Brazil. Methods: The study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Statement. Comprehensive searches for HPV and cancer for the years 2006 to 2016 were conducted in two databases (PubMed and Web of Knowledge) and Google Scholar system. We also tracked the references of all eligible articles to identify additional non-captured publications through online surveys. Results: Eighteen studies, with a combined sample size of 1,552 patients were analyzed. The overall prevalence of HPV was 43% (95% CI: 36–51%; p < 0.001). The pooled prevalence of HPV in penile cancer was 42% (95% CI: 32–55%; p < 0.001), in colorectal cancer it was 67% (95% CI: 64–70%; p < 0.001) and in vulvar cancer 43% (95% CI: 34–55%; p < 0.001). HPV 16 was the most prevalent in all sites evaluated, with prevalence estimated at 54% (95% CI: 44–66%; p < 0.001), followed by genotypes 33 (21%; 95% CI: 17–28; p < 0.001), 6 (15%; 95% CI: 8–26%; p < 0.001), 11 (13%; 95% CI: 5–32%; p < 0.001) and 18 (12%; 95% CI: 7–22%; p < 0.001), respectively. The pooled prevalence of single infection was 82% and infection by multiple genotypes of HPV was 22%. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated a high prevalence of HPV in non-cervical genital cancers in Brazil, with predominance of genotype 16, providing evidence for the need for preventive and control measures to avoid future harm to the population.
Topics: Brazil; Female; Genitalia; Humans; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections; Prevalence; Urogenital Neoplasms; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
PubMed: 30255688
DOI: 10.22034/APJCP.2018.19.9.2359 -
BMC Medicine Jul 2018Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is safe and effective in preventing cervical cancer in females. As HPV infections can also induce cancers of the anus, penis and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is safe and effective in preventing cervical cancer in females. As HPV infections can also induce cancers of the anus, penis and oral cavity, male vaccination is also advocated, but systematic reviews on efficacy and safety in males are lacking.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review on the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of HPV vaccination in males of any age. MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to April 2017.
RESULTS
We identified 5196 articles and seven studies (four randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three non-randomized studies) were included, comprising a total of 5294 participants. Vaccine efficacy against at least 6-month persisting anogenital HPV 16 infections was 46.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 28.6-60.8%), whereas efficacy against persisting oral infections was 88% (2-98%). A vaccine efficacy of 61.9% (21.4-82.8%) and 46.8% (- 20 to -77.9%) was observed against anal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 and grade 3 lesions, respectively. No meaningful estimates were available on vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against penile intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3, and no data were identified for anal, penile or head and neck squamous cell cancer. In participants who were HPV-seronegative and PCR-negative at enrolment, efficacy against all outcomes was higher as compared to seropositive and/or PCR-positive individuals. Risk of bias was low in three RCTs and high in one, while the three non-randomized studies were at serious to critical risk of bias. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation evidence quality was moderate to low for most outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
HPV vaccination in males is moderately effective against persistent anogenital HPV infection and high-grade anal intraepithelial lesions in studies where the population consists mainly of HPV-infected males. Vaccine effectiveness was high in study groups comprising HPV-naïve males. This supports a recommendation for vaccination of boys before the onset of sexual activity with the goal of establishing optimal vaccine-induced protection. Mathematical modelling studies will still be needed to assess the effects of adding males to existing HPV vaccination programs in females.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration CRD42016038965 .
Topics: Adult; Humans; Male; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections; Papillomavirus Vaccines; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 30016957
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-018-1098-3 -
Academic Pediatrics Mar 2018Clinicians' recommendation for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine appears to be an important driver of parental decisions about vaccination. Our aim was to...
Clinicians' recommendation for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine appears to be an important driver of parental decisions about vaccination. Our aim was to synthesize the best available evidence exploring the perceptions and experiences regarding HPV vaccination, from the perspective of the US clinician. We conducted a comprehensive literature search of Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Plus, Communication & Mass Media Complete, Consumer Health Complete (EBSCOhost), ERIC, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, MEDLINE with full text, and PsycINFO databases. We identified 60 eligible articles: 48 quantitative and 12 qualitative. We extracted the following information: study purpose, use of theory, location, inclusion criteria, and health care provider classification. Results were organized into 5 categories: 1) clinicians' knowledge and beliefs about HPV and the HPV vaccine, 2) clinicians' attitudes and beliefs about recommending HPV vaccines, 3) clinicians' intention to recommend HPV vaccines, 4) clinicians' professional practices regarding HPV vaccination, and 5) patient HPV vaccination rates. Although clinicians were generally supportive of HPV vaccination, there was a discrepancy between clinicians' intentions, recommendation practices, and patient vaccination rates. Studies reported that clinicians tended not to provide strong, consistent recommendations, and were more likely to recommend HPV vaccines to girls versus boys and to older versus younger adolescents. Analyses revealed a number of facilitating factors and barriers to HPV vaccination at the clinician, parent/patient, and systems levels, including clinician knowledge, clinician beliefs, and office procedures that promote vaccination. This review provides an evidence base for multilevel interventions to improve clinician HPV vaccine recommendations and vaccination rates.
Topics: Anus Neoplasms; Attitude of Health Personnel; Clinical Competence; Condylomata Acuminata; Female; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Humans; Male; Neoplasms; Nurses; Oropharyngeal Neoplasms; Papillomavirus Infections; Papillomavirus Vaccines; Penile Neoplasms; Physicians; Practice Patterns, Nurses'; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Qualitative Research; United States
PubMed: 29502639
DOI: 10.1016/j.acap.2017.10.007 -
Scientific Reports Aug 2017The true HPV prevalence in the foreskins of infants and children has been little documented, but reporting on this prevalence is of great importance given its impact on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The true HPV prevalence in the foreskins of infants and children has been little documented, but reporting on this prevalence is of great importance given its impact on the rationale for treating asymptomatic boys. We searched multiple databases from 1960 to 2016 for observational or prospective studies that reported on HPV prevalence in foreskins. We conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model to pool for HPV prevalence in the foreskins of infants and children. Eight studies, with a total of 556 infants and children with phimosis, were eligible for the meta-analysis. The pooled overall prevalence of general HPV, high-risk HPV, low-risk HPV, HPV 16/18, HPV 16, and HPV 18 were 17.3 (95%CI: 0.8-46.3), 12.1 (95% CI: 0.9-31.5), 2.4 (95% CI: 0.0-11.2), 4.8 (95% CI: 0.0-16.8), 1.7 (95% CI: 0.0-5.1), and 0 (95% CI: 0-0.5), respectively. The estimated HPV prevalence in foreskins was not zero among infants and children, which implies HPV transmission other than by sexual contact. Considering that high-risk HPV is detected in asymptomatic infants and children, future studies are warranted to determine whether preventive treatments in asymptomatic infants and children could be effective in preventing persistence or transmission of high-risk HPV.
Topics: Adolescent; Asymptomatic Diseases; Carrier State; Child; Child, Preschool; Foreskin; Genotype; Humans; Infant; Male; Papillomaviridae; Papillomavirus Infections; Phimosis; Prevalence; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 28765591
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-07506-z -
World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics Feb 2017To determine whether recent evidence-based United States policies on male circumcision (MC) apply to comparable Anglophone countries, Australia and New Zealand.
AIM
To determine whether recent evidence-based United States policies on male circumcision (MC) apply to comparable Anglophone countries, Australia and New Zealand.
METHODS
Articles in 2005 through 2015 were retrieved from PubMed using the keyword "circumcision" together with 36 relevant subtopics. A further PubMed search was performed for articles published in 2016. Searches of the EMBASE and Cochrane databases did not yield additional citable articles. Articles were assessed for quality and those rated 2+ and above according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Grading System were studied further. The most relevant and representative of the topic were included. Bibliographies were examined to retrieve further key references. Randomized controlled trials, recent high quality systematic reviews or meta-analyses (level 1++ or 1+ evidence) were prioritized for inclusion. A risk-benefit analysis of articles rated for quality was performed. For efficiency and reliability, recent randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, high quality systematic reviews and large well-designed studies were used if available. Internet searches were conducted for other relevant information, including policies and Australian data on claims under Medicare for MC.
RESULTS
Evidence-based policy statements by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) support infant and later age male circumcision (MC) as a desirable public health measure. Our systematic review of relevant literature over the past decade yielded 140 journal articles that met our inclusion criteria. Together, these showed that early infant MC confers immediate and lifelong benefits by protecting against urinary tract infections having potential adverse long-term renal effects, phimosis that causes difficult and painful erections and "ballooning" during urination, inflammatory skin conditions, inferior penile hygiene, candidiasis, various sexually transmissible infections in both sexes, genital ulcers, and penile, prostate and cervical cancer. Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggested that MC has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity or pleasure. United States studies showed that early infant MC is cost saving. The evidence supporting early infant MC has further strengthened since the positive AAP and CDC reviews.
CONCLUSION
Affirmative MC policies are needed in Australia and New Zealand. Routine provision of accurate, unbiased education, and access in public hospitals, will maximize health and financial benefits.
PubMed: 28224100
DOI: 10.5409/wjcp.v6.i1.89 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Jun 2016Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines were designed to prevent cervical cancer in women and their provision remains a major public health need. However, HPV is also a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines were designed to prevent cervical cancer in women and their provision remains a major public health need. However, HPV is also a major cause of non-cervical anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers and the potential benefit of vaccination likely extends beyond cervical cancer.
METHODS
A systematic literature search of PubMed (1995-2014) identified publications assessing the incidence, persistence, and clearance of non-cervical anogenital/oral HPV infections. Comparability with cervical HPV was assessed by identifying articles assessing the same or similar populations.
RESULTS
Available data suggest high incidence rates of non-cervical HPV infection in men and women, with HPV-16 predominating in all sites. The incidence of high risk HPV per 100 person-years ranged from 11.4 to 72.9 for penile infections, 6.7-47.9 at other male genital sites, and 4.4-36.7 and 5.3-23.4 for anal infections in men and women, respectively. The incidence per 100 person-years of oral infection with any HPV type ranged from 5.7 to 6.7 in men and 6.8-39.6 in women. Within the limitations of the data, there was a general pattern of higher incidence and clearance of non-cervical genital HPV infections, compared to cervical infections. HIV status, circumcision, number of sex partners and partner HPV status significantly influenced high-risk HPV incidence/clearance at male anogenital sites. Few studies assessed risk factors for oral HPV.
CONCLUSIONS
Parallels appear to exist between the epidemiology of cervical and non-cervical HPV infections in terms of incidence, HPV-type distribution, and risk factors for infection. Available data suggest that non-cervical genital HPV infections may occur more frequently, with higher clearance rates, than cervical infections. More extensive studies could provide useful information for estimating vaccine impact, the wider cost-benefit of HPV vaccination, and guiding vaccination policy.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Not applicable, as systematic review of the literature.
Topics: Anus Diseases; Female; Genital Diseases, Male; Human papillomavirus 16; Humans; Incidence; Male; Mouth Diseases; Papillomavirus Infections; Papillomavirus Vaccines; Sexual Partners; Sexually Transmitted Diseases; Vaginal Diseases
PubMed: 27301867
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-016-1633-9