This chapter addresses the natural history of anogenital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Cervical infections are the best understood HPV infection. Cervical HPV persistence is the known necessary event for the development of cervical cancer. New infections appearing at any age are benign unless they persist. Several long-term natural history studies have now shed light on the very low risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 3+ in women past the peak of HPV acquisition (e.g., 30 or older) who are HPV-negative or clear their HPV. Although data on transmission of HPV are finally emerging, rates of transmission between heterosexual couples vary widely among studies. Factors that affect the calculations of these rates include a) intervals between testing points, b) rates of concordance or discordance at baseline, and c) difficulty in defining established infections versus contamination. Both cervix to anus and anus to cervix autoinoculation in the same woman appears to be quite common. Whether either site serves as a long-term reservoir is unknown. Studies show that anal infections in women and in men who have sex with men are quite common with cumulative rates up to 70-90%. Similarly, clearance of anal HPV is also common, with few individuals showing persistence unless they are human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected. HIV strongly influences the development of anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN). The few studies on the natural history of AIN in HIV-infected men suggest that high-grade AIN is a precursor to invasive anal cancer. Although no natural history studies of AIN are available in women, women with other HPV-associated lesions, including CIN3+ and vulvar cancer, have higher rates of anal cancer. Data on the natural history of HPV of the male genitalia are also emerging, although penile intraepithelial neoplasia is poorly understood. Cumulative rates of HPV are extremely high in men and risks are associated with sexual behavior. Unlike women, prevalence rates are steady across all ages, suggesting that men do not develop protection against reinfection. This article forms part of a special supplement entitled "Comprehensive Control of HPV Infections and Related Diseases" Vaccine Volume 30, Supplement 5, 2012.

OBJECTIVE:To examine the effect of the bivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine on miscarriage. DESIGN:Observational long term follow-up of a randomized, double blinded trial combined with an independent unvaccinated population based cohort. SETTING:Single center study in Costa Rica. PARTICIPANTS:7466 women in the trial and 2836 women in the unvaccinated cohort enrolled at the end of the randomized trial and in parallel with the observational trial component. INTERVENTION:Women in the trial were assigned to receive three doses of bivalent HPV vaccine (n=3727) or the control hepatitis A vaccine (n=3739). Crossover bivalent HPV vaccination occurred in the hepatitis A vaccine arm at the end of the trial. Women in the unvaccinated cohort received (n=2836) no vaccination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:Risk of miscarriage, defined by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as fetal loss within 20 weeks of gestation, in pregnancies exposed to bivalent HPV vaccination in less than 90 days and any time from vaccination compared with pregnancies exposed to hepatitis A vaccine and pregnancies in the unvaccinated cohort. RESULTS:Of 3394 pregnancies conceived at any time since bivalent HPV vaccination, 381 pregnancies were conceived less than 90 days from vaccination. Unexposed pregnancies comprised 2507 pregnancies conceived after hepatitis A vaccination and 720 conceived in the unvaccinated cohort. Miscarriages occurred in 451 (13.3%) of all exposed pregnancies, in 50 (13.1%) of the pregnancies conceived less than 90 days from bivalent HPV vaccination, and in 414 (12.8%) of the unexposed pregnancies, of which 316 (12.6%) were in the hepatitis A vaccine group and 98 (13.6%) in the unvaccinated cohort. The relative risk of miscarriage for pregnancies conceived less than 90 days from vaccination compared with all unexposed pregnancies was 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.34, one sided P=0.436) in unadjusted analyses. Results were similar after adjusting for age at vaccination (relative risk 1.15, one sided P=0.17), age at conception (1.03, P=0.422), and calendar year (1.06, P=0.358), and in stratified analyses. Among pregnancies conceived at any time from bivalent HPV vaccination, exposure was not associated with an increased risk of miscarriage overall or in subgroups, except for miscarriages at weeks 13-20 of gestation (relative risk 1.35, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.77, one sided P=0.017). CONCLUSIONS:There is no evidence that bivalent HPV vaccination affects the risk of miscarriage for pregnancies conceived less than 90 days from vaccination. The increased risk estimate for miscarriages in a subgroup of pregnancies conceived any time after vaccination may be an artifact of a thorough set of sensitivity analyses, but since a genuine association cannot totally be ruled out, this signal should nevertheless be explored further in existing and future studies.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00128661 and NCT01086709.

BACKGROUND: Results from the Costa Rica Vaccine Trial (CVT) demonstrated partial cross-protection by the bivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which targets HPV-16 and HPV-18, against HPV-31, -33, and -45 infection and an increased incidence of HPV-51 infection. METHODS: A study nested within the CVT intention-to-treat cohort was designed to assess high-risk HPV variant lineage-specific vaccine efficacy (VE). The 2 main end points were (1) long-term incident infections persisting for ≥2 years and/or progression to high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (ie, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 [CIN 2/3]) and (2) incident transient infections lasting for <2 years. For efficiency, incident infections due to HPV-16, -18, -31, -33, -35, -45, and -51 resulting in persistent infection and/or CIN 2/3 were matched (ratio, 1:2) to the more-frequent transient viral infections, by HPV type. Variant lineages were determined by sequencing the upstream regulatory region and/or E6 region. RESULTS: VEs against persistent or transient infections with HPV-16, -18, -33, -35, -45, and -51 did not differ significantly by variant lineage. As the possible exception, VEs against persistent infection and/or CIN 2/3 due to HPV-31 A/B and HPV-31C variants were -7.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], -33.9% to 0%) and 86.4% (95% CI, 65.1%-97.1%), respectively (P = .02 for test of equal VE). No difference in VE was observed by variant among transient HPV-31 infections (P = .68). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, sequence variation at the variant level does not appear to explain partial cross-protection by the bivalent HPV vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus vaccines prevent human papillomavirus infection and cervical precancers. The impact of vaccinating women with a current infection or after treatment for an human papillomavirus-associated lesion is not fully understood. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether human papillomavirus-16/18 vaccination influences the outcome of infections present at vaccination and the rate of infection and disease after treatment of lesions. STUDY DESIGN: We included 1711 women (18-25 years) with carcinogenic human papillomavirus infection and 311 women of similar age who underwent treatment for cervical precancer and who participated in a community-based trial of the AS04-adjuvanted human papillomavirus-16/18 virus-like particle vaccine. Participants were randomized (human papillomavirus or hepatitis A vaccine) and offered 3 vaccinations over 6 months. Follow-up included annual visits (more frequently if clinically indicated), referral to colposcopy of high-grade and persistent low-grade lesions, treatment by loop electrosurgical excisional procedure when clinically indicated, and cytologic and virologic follow-up after treatment. Among women with human papillomavirus infection at the time of vaccination, we considered type-specific viral clearance, and development of cytologic (squamous intraepithelial lesions) and histologic (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia) lesions. Among treated women, we considered single-time and persistent human papillomavirus infection, squamous intraepithelial lesions, and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or greater. Outcomes associated with infections absent before treatment also were evaluated. Infection-level analyses were performed and vaccine efficacy estimated. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 56.7 months (women with human papillomavirus infection) and 27.3 months (treated women). There was no evidence of vaccine efficacy to increase clearance of human papillomavirus infections or decrease incidence of cytologic/histologic abnormalities associated with human papillomavirus types present at enrollment. Vaccine efficacy for human papillomavirus 16/18 clearance and against human papillomavirus 16/18 progression from infection to cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or greater were -5.4% (95% confidence interval -19,10) and 0.3% (95% confidence interval -69,41), respectively. Among treated women, 34.1% had oncogenic infection and 1.6% had cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or greater detected after treatment, respectively, and of these 69.8% and 20.0% were the result of new infections. We observed no significant effect of vaccination on rates of infection/lesions after treatment. Vaccine efficacy estimates for human papillomavirus 16/18 associated persistent infection and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 or greater after treatment were 34.7% (95% confidence interval -131, 82) and -211% (95% confidence interval -2901, 68), respectively. We observed evidence for a partial and nonsignificant protective effect of vaccination against new infections absent before treatment. For incident human papillomavirus 16/18, human papillomavirus 31/33/45, and oncogenic human papillomavirus infections post-treatment, vaccine efficacy estimates were 57.9% (95% confidence interval -43, 88), 72.9% (95% confidence interval 29, 90), and 36.7% (95% confidence interval 1.5, 59), respectively. CONCLUSION: We find no evidence for a vaccine effect on the fate of detectable human papillomavirus infections. We show that vaccination does not protect against infections/lesions after treatment. Evaluation of vaccine protection against new infections after treatment and resultant lesions warrants further consideration in future studies.

BACKGROUND: The AS04-adjuvanted HPV16/18 (AS04-HPV16/18) vaccine provides excellent protection against targeted human papillomavirus (HPV) types and a variable degree of cross-protection against others, including types 6/11/31/33/45. High efficacy against any cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or greater (CIN3+; >90%) suggests that lower levels of protection may exist for a wide range of oncogenic HPV types, which is difficult to quantify in individual trials. Pooling individual-level data from two randomized controlled trials, we aimed to evaluate AS04-HPV16/18 vaccine efficacy against incident HPV infections and cervical abnormalities . METHODS: Data were available from the Costa Rica Vaccine Trial (NCT00128661) and Papilloma Trial Against Cancer in Young Adults trial (NCT00122681), two large-scale, double-blind randomized controlled trials of the AS04-HPV16/18 vaccine. Primary analyses focused on disease-free women with no detectable cervicovaginal HPV at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 12 550 women were included in our primary analyses (HPV arm = 6271, control arm = 6279). Incidence of 6-month persistent oncogenic and nononcogenic infections, excluding known and accepted protected types 6/11/16/18/31/33/45 (focusing on 34/35/39/40/42/43/44/51/52/53/54/56/58/59/66/68/73/70/74), was statistically significantly lower in the HPV arm than in the control arm (efficacy = 9.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7% to 17.4%). Statistically significant efficacy (P < .05) was observed for individual oncogenic types 16/18/31/33/45/52 and nononcogenic types 6/11/53/74. Efficacy against cervical abnormalities (all types) increased with severity, ranging from 27.7% (95% CI = 21.7% to 33.3%) to 58.7% (95% CI = 34.1% to 74.7%) for cytologic outcomes (low-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia lesion or greater, and high-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia lesion or greater, respectively) and 66.0% (95% CI = 54.4% to 74.9%) to 87.8% (95% CI = 71.1% to 95.7%) for histologic outcomes (CIN2+ and CIN3+, respectively). Comparing Costa Rica Vaccine Trial and Papilloma Trial Against Cancer in Young Adults results, there was no evidence of heterogeneity, except for type 51 (efficacy = -28.6% and 20.7%, respectively; two-sided P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: The AS04-HPV16/18 vaccine provides some additional cross-protection beyond established protected types, which partially explains the high efficacy against CIN3+.

Objectives

Obese women are at increased risk of cervical cancer, partly due to missed detection of cervical precancers during routine cervical cancer screening. We administered a clinician survey to better understand specific challenges and identify potential solutions to performing cervical cancer screening and management in obese women.

Materials and methods

We administered a web-based survey to 2,319 members of the American Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology including questions related to challenges associated with cervical sampling and visualization in obese compared with normal weight women and potential strategies for improvement. We summarized providers' responses using descriptive statistics and used Fisher exact tests to evaluate associations between provider characteristics and challenges with cervical sampling, visualization, and biopsy.

Results

Of the 240 providers that completed the survey, 89% and 93% reported that cervical sampling and visualization are more challenging in obese women, respectively, whereas 80% reported that taking a biopsy was more challenging. Commonly reported barriers included vaginal prolapse, difficulty visualizing and accessing the cervix, and lack of long enough sampling devices and large enough speculums. Frequently used techniques to improve sampling and visualization included use of a condom or examination glove finger to sheath a speculum and using a tenaculum. Most providers identified training for cervical sampling and colposcopy in obese women as a learning gap, and only 8% reported receiving such training.

Conclusions

Cervical cancer screening and management are more challenging in obese compared with normal weight women. Major barriers to cervical sampling and visualization included lack of adequately sized equipment and lack of education and training.

BACKGROUND: Previously, we demonstrated similar human papillomavirus (HPV)16/18 vaccine efficacy estimates and stable HPV16/18 antibody levels four years postvaccination in a nonrandomized analysis of women who received a varying number of doses of the bivalent HPV16/18 vaccine. Here we extend data to seven years following initial vaccination. METHODS: We evaluated HPV16/18-vaccinated women who received one (n = 134), two (n 0/1 = 193, n 0/6 = 79), or three doses (n = 2043) to a median of 6.9 years postvaccination. Cervical HPV DNA was measured with the SPF10- DEIA-LiPA PCR system; HPV16/18-specific antibody levels were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (n = 486). Infection and immunological measures were compared across vaccine dose groups. Prevalent HPV infection at year 7 was also compared with an unvaccinated control group (UCG). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Among women in the three-dose, two-dose 0/6 , two-dose 0/1 , and one-dose groups, cumulative incident HPV16/18 infection rates (No. of events/No. of individuals) were 4.3% (88/2036, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.5% to 5.3%), 3.8% (3/78, 95% CI = 1.0% to 10.1%), 3.6% (7/192, 95% CI = 1.6% to 7.1%), and 1.5% (2/133, 95% CI = 0.3% to 4.9%; P = 1.00, .85, .17 comparing the two-dose 0/6 , two-dose 0/1 , and one-dose groups to the three-dose group, respectively). The prevalence of other carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic HPV types, excluding HPV16/18/31/33/45, were high and not statistically different among all dose groups, indicating that the low incidence of HPV16/18 in the one- and two-dose groups was not due to lack of exposure. At seven years, 100% of participants in all dose groups remained HPV16 and HPV18 seropositive. A non-statistically significant decrease in the geometric mean of the HPV16 antibody levels between years 4 and 7 was observed among women in the three-dose group: -10.8% (95% CI = -25.3% to 6.6%); two-dose (0/6 months) group: -17.3% (95% CI = -39.3% to 12.8%), two-dose (0/1 month) group: -6.9% (95% CI = -22.1% to 11.2%), and one-dose group: -5.5% (95% CI = -29.7% to 27.0%); results were similar for HPV18. CONCLUSIONS: At an average of seven years of follow-up, we observed similar low rates of HPV16/18 infections and slight, if any, decreases in HPV16/18 antibody levels by dose group.

CONTEXT.—: Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology (LAST) standardization recommended p16INK4a immunohistochemistry (p16 IHC) for biopsies diagnosed morphologically as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 (CIN2) to classify them as low-grade or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs). OBJECTIVE.—: To describe the relationships of p16 IHC and other biomarkers associated with cervical cancer risk with biopsy diagnoses. DESIGN.—: A statewide, stratified sample of cervical biopsies diagnosed by community pathologists (CPs), including 1512 CIN2, underwent a consensus, expert pathologist panel (EP) review (without p16 IHC results), p16 IHC interpretation by a third pathology group, and human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping, results of which were grouped hierarchically according to cancer risk. Antecedent cytologic interpretations were also available. RESULTS.—: Biopsies were more likely to test p16 IHC positive with increasing severity of CP diagnoses, overall (Ptrend ≤ .001) and within each HPV risk group (Ptrend ≤ .001 except for low-risk HPV [Ptrend < .010]). All abnormal grades of CP-diagnosed biopsies were more likely to test p16 IHC positive with a higher HPV risk group (Ptrend < .001), and testing p16 IHC positive was associated with higher HPV risk group than testing p16 IHC negative for each grade of CP-diagnosed biopsies (P < .001). p16 IHC-positive, CP-diagnosed CIN2 biopsies were less likely than CP-diagnosed CIN3 biopsies to test HPV16 positive, have an antecedent HSIL+ cytology, or to be diagnosed as CIN3+ by the EP (P < .001 for all). p16 IHC-positive, CP-diagnosed CIN1 biopsies had lower HPV risk groups than p16 IHC-negative, CP-diagnosed CIN2 biopsies (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS.—: p16 IHC-positive, CP-diagnosed CIN2 appears to be lower cancer risk than CP-diagnosed CIN3. LAST classification of HSIL diagnosis, which includes p16 IHC-positive CIN2, should annotate the morphologic diagnosis (CIN2 or CIN3) to inform all management decisions, which is especially important for young (<30 years) women diagnosed with CIN2 for whom surveillance rather than treatment is recommended.

BACKGROUND: The Costa Rica HPV Vaccine Trial has documented cross-protection of the bivalent HPV vaccine against HPV31/33/45 up to 7 years after vaccination, even with one dose of the vaccine. However, the durability of such protection remains unknown. Here, we evaluate the efficacy of different schedules of the vaccine against HPV31/33/45 out to 11 years postvaccination, expanding to other nontargeted HPV types. METHODS: We compared the rates of HPV infection in vaccinated women with the rates in a comparable cohort of unvaccinated women. We estimated the average vaccine efficacy (VEavg) against incident infections and tested for a change in VE over time. RESULTS: Among 3-dose women, we observed statistically significant cross-protection against HPV31/33/45 (VEavg = 64.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 57.7% to 70.0%). Additionally, we observed borderline, statistically significant cross-protection against HPV35 (VEavg = 23.2%, 95% CI = 0.3% to 40.8%) and HPV58 (VEavg = 21.2%, 95% CI = 4.2% to 35.3%). There was no decrease in VE over time (two-sided Ptrend > .05 for HPV31, -33, -35, -45, and -58). As a benchmark, VEavg against HPV16/18 was 82.0% (95% CI = 77.3% to 85.7%). Among 1-dose women, we observed comparable efficacy against HPV31/33/45 (VEavg = 54.4%, 95% CI = 21.0% to 73.7%). Acquisition of nonprotected HPV types was similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated women, indicating that the difference in HPV infection rates was not attributable to differential genital HPV exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial cross-protection afforded by the bivalent vaccine against HPV31/33/45, and to a lesser extent, HPV35 and HPV58, was sustained and remained stable after 11 years postvaccination, reinforcing the notion that the bivalent vaccine is an effective option for protection against HPV-associated cancers.

Objectives

The American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology Colposcopy Standards address the role of and approach to colposcopy and biopsy for cervical cancer prevention in the United States. Working Group 1 was tasked with defining the role of colposcopy, describing benefits and potential harms, and developing an official terminology.

Methods

A systematic literature review was performed. A national survey of American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology members provided input on current terminology use. The 2011 International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy terminology was used as a template and modified to fit colposcopic practice in the United States. For areas without data, expert consensus guided the recommendation. Draft recommendations were posted online for public comment and presented at an open session of the 2017 International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy World Congress for further comment. All comments were considered for the final version.

Results

Colposcopy is used in the evaluation of abnormal or inconclusive cervical cancer screening tests. Colposcopy aids the identification of cervical precancers that can be treated, and it allows for conservative management of abnormalities unlikely to progress. The potential harms of colposcopy include pain, psychological distress, and adverse effects of the procedure. A comprehensive colposcopy examination should include documentation of cervix visibility, squamocolumnar junction visibility, presence of acetowhitening, presence of a lesion(s), lesion(s) visibility, size and location of lesions, vascular changes, other features of lesion(s), and colposcopic impression. Minimum criteria for reporting include squamocolumnar junction visibility, presence of acetowhitening, presence of a lesion(s), and colposcopic impression.

Conclusions

A recommended terminology for use in US colposcopic practice was developed, with comprehensive and minimal criteria for reporting.