Human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer and HPV-related diseases

Skinner, S. Rachel; Apter, Dan; Carvalho, N. De; Harper, Diane M.; Konno, Ryo; Paavonen, Jorma; Romanowski, Barbara; Roteli-Martins, Cecília Maria; Burlet, Nansa; Mihályi, Attila; Struyf, Frank

doi:10.1586/14760584.2016.1124763

Cited by 49 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 80 publications

(153 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the impact of HPV infection on the prognosis of ESCC is still uncertain [ 2 , 35 ] . In addition, the recent advances in HPV vaccination can believed to improve the reduction of HPV-related tumors in non-gynecological cancers, which is a optimistic scenario to be proved in near future [ 36 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

HPV infection and p53 and p16 expression in esophageal cancer: are they prognostic factors?

Costa

Fregnani

Pastrez

et al. 2017

Infect Agents Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundEsophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is a highly lethal malignant tumor. Currently, Human papillomavirus (HPV) is suggested as a potential risk factor for esophageal cancer (EC) in addition to the classic risk factors, alcohol and tobacco, but this hypothesis still remains contradictory. We sought to investigate wether HPV and well-known biomarkers (p16 and p53) and patient-related factors that may have impact on survival of ESCC.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study. By using multiplex PCR, we determined the prevalence of high risk HPV in ESCC, and evaluated the immunohistochemical expression of p16 and p53, molecular markers related to esophageal carcinogenesis in order to verify the potential influence of these variables in patients’s survival. Survival rates were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. A multivariate confirmatory model was performed using Cox proportional hazards regression.ResultsTwelve (13.8%) of 87 patients were HPV-DNA positive. Positive reactions of p16 and p53 were 10.7% and 68.6%, respectively. Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that men (p = 0.025) had poor specific-cancer survival and a shorter progression-free survival (p = 0.050) as compared to women; III or IV clinical stage (p < 0.019) had poor specific-cancer survival and a shorter progression-free survival (p < 0.001) compared to I and II clinical stage; not submitted to surgery (<0.001) and not submitted to chemoradiotherapy (p = 0.039) had a poor specific-cancer survival, as well. The multivariate analysis showed that HPV, p16 and p53 status are not predictive parameters of progression-free and specific-cancer survival.ConclusionHPV infection and p53 and p16 expression are not prognostic factors in ESCC.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

HPV infection and p53 and p16 expression in esophageal cancer: are they prognostic factors?

Costa

Fregnani

Pastrez

et al. 2017

Infect Agents Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar declines have been observed in Scotland and Denmark 49– 52 ( Table 1). There are randomised controlled phase 2/3 trials indicating that, despite diverse populations and geographical locations, HPV vaccines covering HPV16/18 provided some cross-protection against non-vaccine strain HPV and could protect women against cervical and non-cervical HPV-related infections 53 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human papillomavirus vaccination: the population impact

Lee

Garland

2017

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We currently have the knowledge and experience to prevent much of human papillomavirus (HPV)-related disease burden globally. In many countries where prophylactic HPV vaccination programs have been adopted as highly effective public health programs with good vaccine coverage, we are already seeing, in real-world settings, reduction of vaccine-related HPV-type infections, genital warts and cervical pre-cancers with potential reductions in vulvar, vaginal and anal pre-cancers. Moreover, we are seeing a change in cervical screening paradigms, as HPV-based screening programs now have strong evidence to support their use as more sensitive ways to detect underlying cervical abnormalities, as compared with conventional cervical cytology. This article describes the impact of prophylactic vaccination on these outcomes and in settings where these vaccines have been implemented in national immunisation programs. Given the successes seen to date and the availability of essential tools, there has been a global push to ensure that every woman has access to effective cervical screening and every girl has the opportunity for primary prevention through vaccination. A gender-neutral approach by offering vaccination to young boys has also been adopted by some countries and is worthy of consideration given that HPV-related cancers also affect males. Furthermore, vaccination of young boys has the advantage of reducing the risk of HPV transmission to sexual partners, lowering the infectious pool of HPV in the general population and ultimately HPV-related diseases for both genders. Therefore, it is appropriate that all countries consider and promote national guidelines and programs to prevent HPV-related diseases.

show abstract

“…66 Potential role of vaccines Bivalent (HPV-16/18; Cervarix R ) and quadrivalent (HPV-6/11/16/18; Gardasil R ) vaccines target-ing the most common HPV types have been found to be effective in cervical, vulvar, oral, and anal cancer. 67 Studies investigating the efficacy of these two vaccines also observed cross-protection against some nonvaccine but oncogenic HPV types (e.g., HPV-31/33/45). More recently, nonavalent (HPV-6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58; Gardasil R ) vaccine has been approved in some countries.…”

Section: The Role Of Hpv Infection and Hpv Vaccines In Esophageal Squmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk factors for esophageal cancer: emphasis on infectious agents

El‐Zimaity

Pilato

Ringressi

et al. 2018

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk factors for esophageal cancer include genetic factors (such as tylosis) and infectious agents. A variety of organisms have been implicated in esophageal carcinogenesis, either directly or indirectly. In this review, we explore the normal esophageal flora and how it may be controlled, and also the variety of organisms that may affect esophageal carcinogenesis, either directly or indirectly. The organisms with potential direct effects in squamous cell carcinoma include human papillomavirus (HPV), Epstein-Barr virus, and polyoma viruses. Interestingly, HPV is now implicated in esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), not in its initiation but in the development of dysplasia, in which HPV33 in particular has been associated. Indirectly, Helicobacter pylori has been associated with EAC by, initially, causing increased acid secretion that increases acid reflux, and by reducing lower esophageal sphincter pressure, which increases gastroesophageal reflux; the latter increases the risk of Barrett's esophagus, and hence EAC. Conversely, subsequent atrophic gastritis may normalize that risk.

show abstract

Human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer and HPV-related diseases

Cited by 49 publications

References 80 publications

HPV infection and p53 and p16 expression in esophageal cancer: are they prognostic factors?

HPV infection and p53 and p16 expression in esophageal cancer: are they prognostic factors?

Human papillomavirus vaccination: the population impact

Risk factors for esophageal cancer: emphasis on infectious agents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About