5 Search Results

Not provided.

Since human papillomavirus vaccine introduction, incidence rates of cervical precancers have decreased; however, the vaccine's impact on noncervical anogenital precancers has not been shown. These precancers are identified opportunistically and are not collected routinely by most cancer registries. This study examined the incidence rates of high-grade (intraepithelial lesions grade 3) vulvar, vaginal, and anal precancers among persons aged 15–39 years using 2000–2017 data from select cancer registries covering 27.8% of the U.S. population that required reporting of these precancers. Trends in incidence rates were evaluated with Joinpoint regression. Analyses were conducted in 2020. High-grade vulvar precancer rates declined by 21.0%more » per year after human papillomavirus vaccine introduction among females aged 15–19 years. In addition, high-grade vaginal precancer rates declined by 19.1% per year among females aged 15–29 years after human papillomavirus vaccine introduction. Compared with that in the prevaccine period when high-grade anal precancer rates were increasing, anal precancer rates after human papillomavirus vaccine introduction were stable among females aged 15–29 years and among males aged 30–39 years. Among males aged 15–29 years, the rates increased over the entire period but less so after human papillomavirus vaccine introduction. In conclusion, opportunistically-detected high-grade vulvar and vaginal precancers among females aged 15–29 years decreased and anal precancers stabilized in years after the introduction of the human papillomavirus vaccine, which is suggestive of the impact of the vaccine on noncervical human papillomavirus cancers.« less

Background US population‐based cancer registries can be used for surveillance of human papillomavirus (HPV) types found in HPV‐associated cancers. Using this framework, HPV prevalence among high‐grade cervical precancers and invasive cervical cancers were compared before and after HPV vaccine availability. Methods Archived tissue from 2 studies of cervical precancers and invasive cervical cancers diagnosed from 1993‐2005 (prevaccine) were identified from 7 central cancer registries in Florida; Hawaii; Iowa; Kentucky; Louisiana; Los Angeles County, California; and Michigan; from 2014 through 2015 (postvaccine) cases were identified from 3 registries in Iowa, Kentucky, and Louisiana. HPV testing was performed using L1 consensus polymerasemore » chain reaction analysis. HPV‐type–specific prevalence was examined grouped by hierarchical attribution to vaccine types: HPV 16, 18, HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, 58, other oncogenic HPV types, and other types/HPV negative. Generalized logit models were used to compare HPV prevalence in the prevaccine study to the postvaccine study by patient age, adjusting for sampling factors. Results A total of 676 precancers (328 prevaccine and 348 postvaccine) and 1140 invasive cervical cancers (777 prevaccine and 363 postvaccine) were typed. No differences were observed in HPV‐type prevalence by patient age between the 2 studies among precancers or invasive cancers. Conclusions The lack of reduction in vaccine‐type prevalence between the 2 studies is likely explained by the low number of cases and low HPV vaccination coverage among women in the postvaccine study. Monitoring HPV‐type prevalence through population‐based strategies will continue to be important in evaluating the impact of the HPV vaccine.« less

Objective. Little is known about the information providers share with patients when ordering a co-test, or combined human papillomavirus (HPV) and Papanicolaou (Pap) test, for cervical cancer screening. We assessed provider perceptions of such communication practices with female patients aged 30–60 years. Methods. We analyzed data from 98 providers in 15 Federally Qualified Health Center clinics across Illinois (2009–2010). Results. About 70% of the providers reported that when ordering a co-test, they would usually or always communicate information about the HPV test to their patients, explain the test detects a sexually transmitted infection, and discuss how the test results maymore » determine their next screening interval. Most (N85%) reported that they were comfortable discussing co-test results. Compared with concordant positive results (HPV positive/ Pap positive), providers were more likely to perceive that discordant results (HPV positive/Pap negative) would be too complex for patients to understand (25% vs. 15%, p = 0.006), and make patients feel less assured that they were getting the best standard of care (67% vs. 88%, p b 0.001). Conclusion. As HPV testing plays a more prominent role in cervical cancer screening, more attention should be given to communications between providers and patients about the benefits and harms of different screening options« less