In addition to oropharyngeal cancers, evidence suggests there may be an etiologic role for human papillomavirus (HPV) in some other head and neck cancers arising from the oral cavity and larynx. We estimated the burden of HPV16-attributable cancers of the oral cavity (ICD-O-3 site codes C02.0-C02.3, C02.9, C03.0, C03.1, C03.9, C04.0, C04.1, C04.8, C04.9, C05.0, C05.8, C05.9, C06.0-C06.2, C06.8, C06.9) and larynx (C32.0-C32.3, C32.8, C32.9) in the United States by pooling estimates from published case studies to calculate HPV16-attributable fractions (HPV16-AFs) and applying the HPV16-AFs to 2016-2020 US Cancer Statistics data. During 2016-2020, of an average annual number of 12,612 oral cavity cancers, 3.9% (n = 497) were estimated to be attributable to HPV16. Of an average annual number of 11,170 laryngeal cancers, 2.8% (n = 309) were estimated to be attributable to HPV16. This information can improve surveillance of HPV16-attributable cancers in the US population and inform our understanding of the potential impact of HPV vaccination on cancers at these two sites.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines were first licensed as a three-dose series. Two doses are now widely recommended in some age groups; there are data suggesting high efficacy with one dose. We updated a systematic literature review of HPV vaccine effectiveness by number of doses in observational studies. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase databases from January 1, 2007, through September 29, 2021. Data were extracted and summarized in a narrative synthesis. We also conducted quality assessments for bias due to selection, information, and confounding. RESULTS: Overall, 35 studies were included; all except one were conducted within the context of a recommended three-dose schedule. Evaluations were in countries that used bivalent HPV vaccine (seven), quadrivalent HPV vaccine (27) or both (one). Nine evaluated effectiveness against HPV infection, ten anogenital warts, and 16 cervical abnormalities. All studies were judged to have moderate or serious risk of bias. The biases rated as serious would likely result in lower effectiveness with fewer doses. Investigators attempted to control for or stratify by potentially important variables, such as age at vaccination. Eight studies evaluated impact of buffer periods (lag time) for case counting and 10 evaluated different intervals between doses for two-dose vaccine recipients. Studies that stratified by vaccination age found higher effectiveness with younger age at vaccination, although differences were not all formally tested. Most studies found highest estimates of effectiveness with three doses; significant effectiveness was found among 28/29 studies that evaluated three doses, 19/29 that evaluated two doses, and 18/30 that evaluated one dose. Some studies that adjusted or stratified analyses by age at vaccination found similar effectiveness with three, two and one doses. CONCLUSION: Observational studies of HPV vaccine effectiveness have many biases. Studies examining persons vaccinated prior to sexual activity and using methods to reduce sources of bias are needed for valid effectiveness estimates.

INTRODUCTION: Whether existing serological assays are sufficiently robust to measure the lower antibody levels expected following single-dose HPV vaccination is unknown. METHODS: We evaluated seven assays measuring HPV-16/18 immunological responses overall and by number of doses in 530 serum samples from participants receiving varying doses of Cervarix or Gardasil up to 36-months post-vaccination. Serum was evaluated by simplex (HPV-16 ELISA, HPV-18 ELISA), multiplex (LIA-4, VLP-MIA, M9ELISA, GST-L1), and high-throughput pseudovirion-based neutralization assays (HT-PBNA), and results were compared to the gold standard HPV-16/18 secreted alkaline phosphatase neutralization assay (SEAP-NA). Reproducibility was assessed by the coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Percent agreement, Pearson correlation, and weighted-kappa were used to assess validity. Determinants of seronegativity were evaluated by chi-squared test. RESULTS: HPV-16: Seropositivity range was 97.1-99.5% for single dose and 98.8-99.8% overall. CV range was 4.0-18.0% for single dose and 2.9-19.5% overall. ICC range was 0.77-0.99 for single dose and 0.74-0.99 overall. Correlation with SEAP-NA range was 0.43-0.85 for single dose and 0.51-0.90 overall. Weighted-kappa range was 0.34-0.82 for single dose and 0.45-0.84 overall. HPV-18: Seropositivity range was 63.9-94.7% for single dose and 86.2-97.9% overall. CV range was 8.1-18.2% for single dose and 4.6-18.6% overall. ICC range was 0.75-0.99 for single dose and 0.83-0.99 overall. Correlation with SEAP-NA range was 0.31-0.99 for single dose and 0.27-0.96 overall. Weighted-kappa range was 0.35-0.83 for single dose and 0.45-0.84 overall. HPV-16 seronegativity was <5% for all assays. HPV-18 seronegativity range was 5.5-17.3%. For LIA-4 and GST-L1 where the proportion of seronegativity was >10%, the strongest correlates of seronegativity were receiving a single vaccine dose and receiving Gardasil. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the utility of existing serological assays to monitor antibody responses following single-dose HPV vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer screening might contribute to the prevention of anal cancer in women. We aimed to investigate if routine cervical cancer screening results-namely high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cytohistopathology-predict anal HPV16 infection, anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) and, hence, anal cancer. METHODS: We did a systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library for studies of cervical determinants of anal HPV and HSIL published up to Aug 31, 2018. We centrally reanalysed individual-level data from 13 427 women with paired cervical and anal samples from 36 studies. We compared anal high-risk HPV prevalence by HIV status, cervical high-risk HPV, cervical cytohistopathology, age, and their combinations, using prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% CIs. Among 3255 women with anal cytohistopathology results, PRs were similarly calculated for all anal HSIL and HPV16-positive anal HSIL. FINDINGS: Cervical and anal HPV infections were highly correlated. In HIV-negative women, anal HPV16 prevalence was 41% (447/1097) in cervical HPV16-positive versus 2% (214/8663) in cervical HPV16-negative women (PR 16.5, 95% CI 14.2-19.2, p<0.0001); these values were 46% (125/273) versus 11% (272/2588) in HIV-positive women (4.4, 3.7-5.3, p<0.0001). Anal HPV16 was also associated with cervical cytohistopathology, with a prevalence of 44% [101/228] for cervical cancer in HIV-negative women (PR vs normal cytology 14.1, 11.1-17.9, p<0.0001). Anal HSIL was associated with cervical high-risk HPV, both in HIV-negative women (from 2% [11/527] in cervical high-risk HPV-negative women up to 24% [33/138] in cervical HPV16-positive women; PR 12.9, 95% CI 6.7-24.8, p<0.0001) and HIV-positive women (from 8% [84/1094] to 17% [31/186]; 2.3, 1.6-3.4, p<0.0001). Anal HSIL was also associated with cervical cytohistopathology, both in HIV-negative women (from 1% [5/498] in normal cytology up to 22% [59/273] in cervical HSIL; PR 23.1, 9.4-57.0, p<0.0001) and HIV-positive women (from 7% [105/1421] to 25% [25/101]; 3.6, 2.5-5.3, p<0.0001). Prevalence of HPV16-positive anal HSIL was 23-25% in cervical HPV16-positive women older than 45 years (5/20 in HIV-negative women, 12/52 in HIV-positive women). INTERPRETATION: HPV-based cervical cancer screening programmes might help to stratify anal cancer risk, irrespective of HIV status. For targeted secondary anal cancer prevention in high-risk groups, HIV-negative women with cervical HPV16, especially those older than 45 years, have a similar anal cancer risk profile to that of HIV-positive women. FUNDING: International Agency for Research on Cancer.