This Letter to the Editor comments upon a recent publication on the impact of Cervarix vaccination on Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cervical cancer in the United Kingdom in which estimates of long-term, crossprotection against non-vaccine HPV types of 20 y were provided. However, the article fails to cite several studies regarding the durability of cross-protection. Overall, studies have shown that while virus-like particle (VLP) HPV vaccines have demonstrated consistently high and long-lasting type-specific protection against the included HPV types, cross-protection efficacy against non-vaccine types is lower and wanes over time. It is also noted that cross-protection antigens are not specifically manufactured, quality-controlled or potency tested as are the vaccine HPV VLPs that undergo such testing before release of product.The report by Van Effelterre, et al. (2016) presented various 'vaccine scenarios' for the efficacy of the bivalent Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in order to inform the health economics model presented in the paper.1 Estimates of efficacy included impact of vaccination on lifelong, 20-year cross-protection versus no protection against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2C) and cancer due to HPV 31/33/45 and 9 other HPV types. Estimates of efficacy were drawn from the end of study results of the phase III study, PATRICIA, which lasted 4 y. Unfortunately, the authors failed to cite some important findings regarding the likely durability of cross-protection, including reports from study-extension data on the long term effectiveness of the bivalent HPV vaccine. Although long-term studies have demonstrated continued protection against those specifically manufactured HPV types present in a quadrivalent HPV vaccine (6/11/16/18) through 8 y of follow-up 3 and the bivalent HPV vaccine (16/18) for up to 9 years, 4 long-term follow-up studies that have evaluated continued effectiveness due to cross-protection post-vaccination are more limited, and have shown at best, partial protection that markedly wanes over time.For example, Malagon, et al., performed a meta-analysis of HPV vaccine clinical trials including the 4-year PATRICIA trial and longer-term trials of the bivalent vaccine. 5 The analysis reported that while the bivalent vaccine conferred cross-protection for HPV types 31, 33, and 45 at varying degrees, estimates of efficacy were lost by 6 y of follow-up. An evaluation of a long-term extension of a Phase II study of the bivalent vaccine by Naud, et al. showed no cross-protection against persistent infection and high-grade disease for any non-vaccine type, including 31, 33, and 45 at 9 y of follow-up. 4 Another analysis of the efficacy across these HPV types for the bivalent vaccine using extension study and registry data by Saah et al., similarly showed a waning of response in non-vaccine types (see Table 1). 6 Estimates of efficacy based on persistent infection were assessed, which obviated complications of HPV attribution in tissue specimens tested by PCR. Efficacy again...