JOM KITA KE POLITEKNIK

Will HPV vaccination prevent cervical cancer? (Record no. 173)

MARC details
042 ## - AUTHENTICATION CODE
Authentication code dc
100 10 - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME
Personal name Rees, Claire P
Relator term author
9 (RLIN) 620
245 00 - TITLE STATEMENT
Title Will HPV vaccination prevent cervical cancer?
260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC.
Name of publisher, distributor, etc. SAGE Publications,
Date of publication, distribution, etc. 2020-01-21.
500 ## - GENERAL NOTE
General note /pmc/articles/PMC7068772/
500 ## - GENERAL NOTE
General note /pubmed/31962050
520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC.
Summary, etc. We conducted a critical appraisal of published Phase 2 and 3 efficacy trials in relation to the prevention of cervical cancer in women. Our analysis shows the trials themselves generated significant uncertainties undermining claims of efficacy in these data. There were 12 randomised control trials (RCTs) of Cervarix and Gardasil. The trial populations did not reflect vaccination target groups due to differences in age and restrictive trial inclusion criteria. The use of composite and distant surrogate outcomes makes it impossible to determine effects on clinically significant outcomes. It is still uncertain whether human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination prevents cervical cancer as trials were not designed to detect this outcome, which takes decades to develop. Although there is evidence that vaccination prevents cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1) this is not a clinically important outcome (no treatment is given). Trials used composite surrogate outcomes which included CIN1. High efficacy against CIN1+ (CIN1, 2, 3 and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS)) does not necessarily mean high efficacy against CIN3+ (CIN3 and AIS), which occurs much less frequently. There are too few data to clearly conclude that HPV vaccine prevents CIN3+. CIN in general is likely to have been overdiagnosed in the trials because cervical cytology was conducted at intervals of 6-12 months rather than at the normal screening interval of 36 months. This means that the trials may have overestimated the efficacy of the vaccine as some of the lesions would have regressed spontaneously. Many trials diagnosed persistent infection on the basis of frequent testing at short intervals, i.e. less than six months. There is uncertainty as to whether detected infections would clear or persist and lead to cervical changes.
540 ## - TERMS GOVERNING USE AND REPRODUCTION NOTE
Terms governing use and reproduction © The Royal Society of Medicine
546 ## - LANGUAGE NOTE
Language note en
690 ## - LOCAL SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM (OCLC, RLIN)
Topical term or geographic name as entry element Review
9 (RLIN) 623
655 7# - INDEX TERM--GENRE/FORM
Genre/form data or focus term Text
Source of term local
700 10 - ADDED ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME
Personal name Brhlikova, Petra
Relator term author
9 (RLIN) 621
700 10 - ADDED ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME
Personal name Pollock, Allyson M
Relator term author
9 (RLIN) 622
786 0# - DATA SOURCE ENTRY
Note J R Soc Med
856 41 - ELECTRONIC LOCATION AND ACCESS
Uniform Resource Identifier <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0141076819899308">http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0141076819899308</a>
Public note Connect to this object online.

No items available.