General Childhood Vaccination Against HPV 16 and 18 Aimed at Preventing Cervical Cancer

This document was published more than 2 years ago. The nature of the evidence may have changed.

Summary and Conclusions

SBU’s appraisal of the evidence

Vaccination against viral infections is a relatively new principle for cancer prevention. Vaccines against human papilloma virus (HPV) are aimed at preventing cervical cancer. Current vaccines target HPV types 16 and 18 and not all cervical cancer-associated HPV types.

  • In young women1 showing no signs of past or current HPV 16 or 18 infection at the onset of the study, vaccination provided over 90% protection against high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN) positive for HPV 16 or 182 (Evidence Grade 1)*. These study results currently offer the closest estimate of the expected preventive effect of vaccinating children.
  • After vaccination, children initially developed an immune response that was equal or superior to that achieved in young women after vaccination2 (Evidence Grade 2)*.
  • The effect of general childhood vaccination against HPV 16 and 18 on future morbidity and mortality from cervical cancer in Sweden is not yet known. One estimate shows that nearly half of the cervical cancer cases would not be prevented by general childhood vaccination against HPV 16 and 18. Therefore organized cervical cancer screening programs would need to continue.
  • The effect of general childhood vaccination against HPV 16 and 18 on the willingness of vaccinated women to participate in organized screening programs would need to be determined.
  • Scientific evidence on the cost-effectiveness of general childhood vaccination against HPV 16 and 18, in combination with organized cervical cancer screening programs, is uncertain and therefore found to be insufficient. Whether or not vaccine against HPV 16 and 18 should be included in the Swedish general vaccination program is a policy issue that concerns, among other things, the level of uncertainty that the public can accept regarding positive and negative effects when allocating resources. Introducing such a program would require organized, systematic followup of the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of all preventive interventions against cervical cancer.

1 Aged 15 to 26 years.

2 The conclusions are based on studies of both vaccines, ie, Gardasil and Cervarix.

Technology and target group

Two vaccines against HPV are approved for use in Europe, Gardasil and Cervarix. They target two HPV types associated with cervical cancer, HPV 16 and 18. This report assesses the benefits, risks, and costs of general childhood vaccination against HPV 16 and 18.

Infection of the cervix by one or more HPVs is a prerequisite for cervical cancer. These infections are usually asymptomatic and most of them regress spontaneously. They can however persist and develop into cellular changes. These persistent cellular changes can in some women progress to cancer. Over 100 HPV types have been identified, 18 of which are high-risk or potentially high-risk types for cervical cancer. The time lapse from infection with HPV to fully developed cancer can be very long, often more than 20 years.

The incidence of cervical cancer and mortality from the disease are highest in some developing countries and lowest in Western Europe, North America, and Japan. The incidence in Sweden has decreased by over 60% in the past 40 years. Cervical cancer is currently the 15th most common type of cancer among Swedish women. Introduction of organized cervical cancer screening programs is one reason behind the reduced incidence. These programs enable early detection and treatment of cellular changes, before they become at risk for developing into cancer. Nevertheless, around 450 women in Sweden are diagnosed with cervical cancer annually, and approximately 150 women die of the disease per year. Hence, preventive interventions can be further improved.

Patient benefit

Can general childhood vaccination against HPV 16 and 18 prevent high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN)? There are no study results of the capacity of the vaccines to prevent cellular changes after childhood vaccination. However, vaccination of young women (average age: 20 years) has been assessed. Study results are available on young women who had normal pap smears before study onset and were without signs of past or current HPV 16 or 18 infections at study onset. These results currently offer the closest estimate of the expected preventive effect of vaccinating children.

The findings indicated over 90% protection against high-grade CIN positive for HPV 16 or 18. The average followup time was 3 years at most. Hence, the vaccines’ protective effects were assessed during a short time after they had been administered. This situation differs from one where children are vaccinated several years prior to their sexual debut, ie, where the protective effects must remain for a longer period than that shown by available data.

Do children develop an immune response after vaccination against HPV 16 and 18 equivalent to that found in young women after vaccination? Studies have addressed the percentage of individuals who develop antibodies against HPV 16 or 18 and the antibody levels in these individuals after vaccination.

The results showed that, compared to young women, children (average age: 12 years) initially develop significantly higher antibody levels after vaccination. The longest followup times in studies including vaccination of children were 18 months for Gardasil and 7 months for Cervarix. The most common side effects reported after vaccination were local reactions at the injection site, eg, pain, redness, and swelling.

Can general childhood vaccination against HPV 16 and 18 reduce future morbidity and mortality from cervical cancer in Sweden? High-grade CIN can progress to cancer and is therefore considered an acceptable surrogate endpoint for cervical cancer. The studies have primarily analyzed the effects on high-grade CIN positive for HPV 16 or 18.

The percentage of morbidity in cervical cancer that could be prevented through a general vaccination program depends on, among other things, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 in cellular changes and in cervical cancer. The HPV types in cervical cancer are however not routinely identified. In some cancer cases, HPV 16 and/or 18 appear concurrently with other oncogenic HPV types. It is not known whether vaccination against HPV 16 and 18 would be able to prevent these cases. It is estimated that just over half of the cases of cervical cancer could be prevented under the following assumptions: vaccination against HPV 16 and 18 would have an effect on 60% of cervical cancer cases; the vaccines offer a protective effect of 90%; and participation in the vaccination program is 95%.

The effect that a nation-wide, general vaccination program would have on morbidity and mortality from cervical cancer is not yet known.

Research gaps

Followups exceeding 5.5 years are not available for the vaccines’ capacity to protect against HPV 16 and 18 infections. The need for booster doses to achieve lifelong protection has not been established. Cervarix contains a relatively new adjuvant, and no results from long-term followups are available after vaccination of children.

The antibody level mediating protection against infection with HPV 16 and 18 is not yet known. Nor has a standardized method been established to measure antibody levels after HPV vaccination.

A rigorous, systematic followup is required to assess the effects of general vaccination against HPV 16 and 18. For example, the willingness of vaccinated women to participate in organized screening programs would need to be monitored.

Economic aspects

Is general childhood vaccination against HPV 16 and 18 in combination with organized cervical cancer screening programs cost-effective in Sweden? The estimated annual cost for general vaccination against HPV 16 and 18, of girls in Sweden, is approximately 200 million Swedish kronor (SEK). With a booster dose, the cost would be just over SEK 260 million. A vaccination program also including boys would double these costs.

Several health economic model studies have analyzed the costs for HPV vaccination of girls aged 12 years. The estimated cost per life-year saved varies from less than SEK 100 000 to just over SEK 450 000, under the assumption that vaccinated girls will participate in cervical cancer screening programs. The relationship between cost and effect is influenced by several factors, among others, the price of the vaccine and the percentage of cancer cases that could be prevented by vaccination. All studies assumed the latter to be 70%. This assumption did not vary in any of these studies. The percentage of cancer cases that could be prevented by vaccination against HPV 16 and 18 might be lower. Hence, all of the model studies might have overestimated the effects of a general childhood vaccination.

Vaccine price is also a decisive factor in assessing cost-effectiveness. A lower price increases the probability that a general childhood vaccination would be considered cost-effective in relation to an alternative use of these healthcare resources.

Ethical aspects

Cervical cancer is a serious disease. One could therefore argue that an intervention that might prevent some of these cases is motivated. On the other hand it may be seen as unethical to commit resources for an intervention whose effect on future morbidity and mortality is unknown. This issue is further complicated by the fact that the potential effects on morbidity and mortality will not be known for several decades.

*Criteria for Evidence Grading SBU’s Conclusions
Evidence Grade 1 – Strong Scientific Evidence. The conclusion is corroborated by at least two independent studies with high quality and internal validity, or a good systematic overview.
Evidence Grade 2 – Moderately Strong Scientific Evidence. The conclusion is corroborated by one study with high quality and internal validity, and at least two studies with medium qual­ity and internal validity.
Evidence Grade 3 – Limited Scientific Evidence. The conclusion is corroborated by at least two studies with medium quality and internal validity.
Insufficient Scientific Evidence – No conclusions can be drawn when there are not any studies that meet the criteria for quality and internal validity.
Contradictory Scientific Evidence – No conclusions can be drawn when there are studies with the same quality and internal validity whose findings contradict each other.

This summary is based on a report prepared by SBU in collaboration with Kari Johansen, MD, PhD, Department of Virology, Karolinska Institutet and the Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control, Stockholm. The report was reviewed by: Marta Granström, MD, Professor, Department of Clinical Microbiology, Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm; and Björn Strander, MD, PhD, Oncology Center for the Western Sweden Health-Care Region. Comments on the manuscript were also submitted by: Pär Sparén, Professor, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm; and Göran Wadell, MD, Professor, Department for Clinical Microbiology – Virology, Umeå University, Umeå. Project managers: Susanne Vilhelmsdotter Allander, SBU; and Anders Norlund, SBU.

The complete report is available only in Swedish.

SBU Alert is a service provided by SBU in collaboration with the Medical Products Agency, the National Board of Health and Welfare, and the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions.

References

  1. Woodman CB, Collins SI, Young LS. The natural history of cervical HPV infection: unresolved issues. Nat Rev Cancer 2007;7(1):11-22.
  2. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55(2):74-108.
  3. Cancer Incidence in Sweden 2004. Statistics, Health and Diseases 2005:9. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen; 2005. ISBN 91-85482-09-0.
  4. Dödsorsaksstatistik 2000–2004 [internetdatabas]. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen. http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/Statistik/statistikdatabas.
  5. Cancerstatistik 2001–2005 [internetdatabas]. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen. http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/Statistik/statistikdatabas.
  6. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans - Volume 90, Human Papillomaviruses. Lyon: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2007. http://monographs.iarc.fr.
  7. Naucler P, Ryd W, Tornberg S, Strand A, Wadell G, Hansson BG et al. HPV type-specific risks of high-grade CIN during 4 years of follow-up: a population-based prospective study. Br J Cancer 2007;97(1):129-32.
  8. European Medicines Agency (EMEA). European Public Assessment Report - Gardasil.
  9. European Medicines Agency (EMEA). European Public Assessment Report - Cervarix.
  10. Läkemedelsförmånsnämnden. Beslut angående Gardasil.
  11. Pagliusi SR, Aguado TM. Efficacy and other milestones for human papillomavirus vaccine introduction. Vaccine 2004;23(5):569-78.
  12. Ostor AG. Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1993;12(2):186-92.
  13. Munoz N, Bosch FX, Castellsague X, Diaz M, de Sanjose S, Hammouda D et al. Against which human papillomavirus types shall we vaccinate and screen? The international perspective. Int J Cancer 2004;111(2):278-85.
  14. Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, Bosch FX, Kummer JA, Shah KV et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999;189(1):12-9.
  15. Forslund O, Antonsson A, Edlund K, van den Brule AJ, Hansson BG, Meijer CJ et al. Population-based type-specific prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus infection in middle-aged Swedish women. J Med Virol 2002;66(4):535-41.
  16. Ribi E, Parker R, Strain SM, Mizuno Y, Nowotny A, Von Eschen K et al. Peptides as requirement for immunotherapy of the guinea-pig line-10 tumor with endotoxins. Cancer Immunol Immunother 1979;7:43-58.
  17. Levie K, Gjorup I, Skinhoj P, Stoffel M. A 2-dose regimen of a recombinant hepatitis B vaccine with the immune stimulant AS04 compared with the standard 3-dose regimen of Engerix-B in healthy young adults. Scand J Infect Dis 2002;34(8):610-4.
  18. Boland G, Beran J, Lievens M, Sasadeusz J, Dentico P, Nothdurft H et al. Safety and immunogenicity profile of an experimental hepatitis B vaccine adjuvanted with AS04. Vaccine 2004;23(3):316-20.
  19. Joakim Dillner, personal communication.
  20. Winer RL, Hughes JP, Feng Q, O’Reilly S, Kiviat NB, Holmes KK et al. Condom use and the risk of genital human papillomavirus infection in young women. N Engl J Med 2006;354(25):2645-54.
  21. Nationellt kvalitetsregister för gynekologisk cellprovskontroll. Gynekologisk cellprovskontroll i Sverige - Rapport 2006. Stockholm: Institutet för medicinsk epidemiologi och biostatistik, Karolinska Institutet; 2007.
  22. Bengt Andrae, personal communication.
  23. Naucler P, Ryd W, Tornberg S, Strand A, Wadell G, Elfgren K et al. Human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou tests to screen for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;357(16):1589-97.
  24. Villa LL, Costa RL, Petta CA, Andrade RP, Ault KA, Giuliano AR et al. Prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 virus-like particle vaccine in young women: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre phase II efficacy trial. Lancet Oncol 2005;6(5):271-8.
  25. Villa LL, Costa RL, Petta CA, Andrade RP, Paavonen J, Iversen OE et al. High sustained efficacy of a prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus types 6/11/16/18 L1 virus-like particle vaccine through 5 years of follow-up. Br J Cancer 2006;95(11):1459-66.
  26. Garland SM, Hernandez-Avila M, Wheeler CM, Perez G, Harper DM, Leodolter S et al. Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent anogenital diseases. N Engl J Med 2007;356(19):1928-43.
  27. FUTURE II Study Group. Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent high-grade cervical lesions. N Engl J Med 2007;356(19):1915-27.
  28. Harper DM, Franco EL, Wheeler C, Ferris DG, Jenkins D, Schuind A et al. Efficacy of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine in prevention of infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004;364(9447):1757-65.
  29. Harper DM, Franco EL, Wheeler CM, Moscicki AB, Romanowski B, Roteli-Martins CM et al. Sustained efficacy up to 4.5 years of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine against human papillomavirus types 16 and 18: follow-up from a randomised control trial. Lancet 2006;367(9518):1247-55.
  30. Paavonen J, Jenkins D, Bosch FX, Naud P, Salmeron J, Wheeler CM et al. Efficacy of a prophylactic adjuvanted bivalent L1 virus-like-particle vaccine against infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: an interim analysis of a phase III double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;369(9580):2161-70.
  31. Villa LL, Ault KA, Giuliano AR, Costa RL, Petta CA, Andrade RP et al. Immunologic responses following administration of a vaccine targeting human papillomavirus Types 6, 11, 16, and 18. Vaccine 2006;24(27-28):5571-83.
  32. Olsson SE, Villa LL, Costa RL, Petta CA, Andrade RP, Malm C et al. Induction of immune memory following administration of a prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) types 6/11/16/18 L1 virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine. Vaccine 2007;25(26):4931-9.
  33. Giannini SL, Hanon E, Moris P, Van Mechelen M, Morel S, Dessy F et al. Enhanced humoral and memory B cellular immunity using HPV16/18 L1 VLP vaccine formulated with the MPL/aluminium salt combination (AS04) compared to aluminium salt only. Vaccine 2006;24(33-34):5937-49.
  34. Reisinger KS, Block SL, Lazcano-Ponce E, Samakoses R, Esser MT, Erick J et al. Safety and persistent immunogenicity of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus types 6, 11, 16, 18 L1 virus-like particle vaccine in preadolescents and adolescents: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2007;26(3):201-9.
  35. Block SL, Nolan T, Sattler C, Barr E, Giacoletti KE, Marchant CD et al. Comparison of the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of a prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 virus-like particle vaccine in male and female adolescents and young adult women. Pediatrics 2006;118(5):2135-45.
  36. Pedersen C, Petaja T, Strauss G, Rumke HC, Poder A, Richardus JH et al. Immunization of early adolescent females with human papillomavirus type 16 and 18 L1 virus-like particle vaccine containing AS04 adjuvant. J Adolesc Health 2007;40(6):564-71.
  37. Marais DJ, Sampson CC, Urban MI, Sitas F, Wiliamson AL. The seroprevalence of IgG antibodies to human papillomavirus (HPV) types HPV-16, HPV-18, and HPV-11 capsid-antigens in mothers and their children. J Med Virol 2007;79(9):1370-4.
  38. Gunnell AS. Risk factors for cervical cancer development, Thesis. Stockholm: Karolinska Institutet; 2007. ISBN 978-91-7357-437-2.
  39. Sigurdsson K, Taddeo FJ, Benediktsdottir KR, Olafsdottir K, Sigvaldason H, Oddsson K et al. HPV genotypes in CIN 2-3 lesions and cervical cancer: A population-based study. Int J Cancer 2007;121(12):2682-7.
  40. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). http://www.cdc.gov.
  41. Institutet för hälso- och sjukvårdsekonomi (IHE). Hur ska nya vacciner finansieras? IHE-information 3/2006.
  42. Goldie SJ, Kohli M, Grima D, Weinstein MC, Wright TC, Bosch FX et al. Projected clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of a human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96(8):604-15.
  43. Kulasingam SL, Myers ER. Potential health and economic impact of adding a human papillomavirus vaccine to screening programs. JAMA 2003;290(6):781-9.
  44. Økonomisk evaluering av humant papillomvirus (HPV)-vaksinasjon i Norge - Helseøkonomisk modell. Oslo: Kunnskapssenteret; 2007. Rapport nr 12-2007.
  45. Sanders GD, Taira AV. Cost-effectiveness of a potential vaccine for human papillomavirus. Emerg Infect Dis 2003;9(1):37-48.
  46. Reduktion af risikoen for livmoderhalskræft ved vaccination mod humant papillomvirus (HPV) - en medicinsk teknologivurdering. Köpenhamn: Sundhedsstyrelsen, Enhed for medicinsk teknologivurdering; 2007. Medicinsk teknologivurdering 2007;9(1).
  47. Taira AV, Neukermans CP, Sanders GD. Evaluating human papillomavirus vaccination programs. Emerg Infect Dis 2004;10(11):1915-23.
  48. Pär Sparén, personal communication.
  49. Hermerén G. Hälsa och etisk analys i ett aktörsperspektiv, Begrepp om hälsa. Stockholm: Liber; 1995.
  50. Brabin L, Roberts SA, Kitchener HC. A semi-qualitative study of attitudes to vaccinating adolescents against human papillomavirus without parental consent. BMC Public Health 2007;7:20.
  51. Zimmerman RK. Ethical analysis of HPV vaccine policy options. Vaccine 2006;24(22):4812-20.
  52. Coombes R. Life saving treatment or giant experiment? BMJ 2007;334(7596):721-3.
  53. Resultat från en kvalitativ undersökning med syfte att få kunskap om föräldrars, ungdomars och skolsköterskors inställning till HPV-vaccinering. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen; 2007.
  54. Flogging gardasil (Editorial). Nat Biotechnol 2007;25(3):261.
Download summary

SBU Assessment presents a comprehensive, systematic assessment of available scientific evidence. The certainty of the evidence for each finding is systematically reviewed and graded. Full assessments include economic, social, and ethical impact analyses.

SBU assessments are performed by a team of leading professional practitioners and academics, patient/user representatives and SBU staff. Prior to approval and publication, assessments are reviewed by independent experts, SBU’s Scientific Advisory Committees and Board of Directors.

Published: 1/31/2008
Contact SBU: registrator@sbu.se
Report no: 2008-01
http://www.sbu.se/200801e