Talk:Human papillomavirus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human papillomavirus article.
Article policies
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale
Viruses WikiProject This article is within the scope of the Viruses WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and organize articles about biological viruses on Wikipedia. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is has been assigned a Top-importance to the Viruses WikiProject.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Questionable Sentence

A recently approved HPV vaccine that blocks initial infection with several of the most common sexually transmitted HPV types may lead to further decreases in the incidence of HPV-induced cancer (Lowy and Schiller 2006). This sentence seems a bit misleading and may even be contradicted by a the CDC in a recent CNN article on HPV. [1] Please take a look and judge for yourselves but in order to be completely fact based this sentence perhaps should be removed. (this unsigned contribution was by 206.209.15.42 on 28 February 2007)

The CNN link to that AP article no longer works, but I found the article here and here.
The article is not well-written, though. The sensationalist lead sentence is, "One in four U.S. women ages 14 to 59 is infected with the sexually transmitted virus that in some forms can cause cervical cancer, according to the first broad national estimate." Unfortunately, it is left unclear in the article whether that is a reference to high-risk HPV strains, or to any type of HPV. (It turns out to be a reference to all sexually-transmitted types of HPV, both high-risk and low-risk.)
The AMA does not permit free access to the JAMA article upon which that AP article is based. However, I found many related articles about the same study, including articles here, here, and here. The last of those (a Wall Street Journal article reproduced on the web site of Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D.) is better written. It reports that the study found 26.8% prevalence of 'all' HPV strains, 3.4% prevalence of the four strains which Gardasil protects against, of which ~2% were types 16 & 18 (the two high-risk strains that Gardasil protects against). Reading between the lines, it appears that the study might not have tested for the other 17 HPV types which are currently known or thought to be high-risk strains.
That brings me to a question, which I first asked on the Talk:HPV vaccine page. I would be most grateful for any comments or answer to that question. It seems that a U. Wash. study found that only 18% of fresh high-risk HPV infections in female university students were with types 16 or 18, the two high-risk types which Gardasil protects against. The other 82% of the infections with high-risk HPV types were with 16 other high-risk strains. 18% is far short of the 70%, which is the approximate percentage of cervical cancer cases which are said to be caused by types 16 & 18. I can think of two obvious possible explanations for the disparity:
  • 1. The "mix" of HPV strains in circulation is changing. 70% of high-risk infections 30-40(?) years ago (when most current cervical cancer victims presumably became infected) were types 16 & 18, but now other high-risk strains predominate. And/or,
  • 2. The carcinogenicity of types 16 & 18 is higher than most of the other high-risk strains of HPV.
So the question that I asked is: which is the correct explanation? Or is there another explanation that I've not thought of?
The answer to that question has important health and public policy implications. If the the mix of HPV strains in general circulation has changed, such that the prevalence of high-risk strains other than 16 & 18 has increased, then the advertised 70% effectiveness against cervical cancer of the HPV vaccines is overstated, and perhaps very greatly overstated.
If you have an answer to this question, please post it here. NCdave 08:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

The ["HPV-induced cancers" figure] and the text ("Sexually transmitted HPVs also cause [...] approximately 25% of cancers of the mouth and upper throat") seem to radically disagree. The figure doesn't show anywhere near 25% attributed to mouth and throat.

I'd like to see some specific statements about the impact of HPV on males, both heterosexual and homosexual. An FAQ I wish were answered, for example, are the risks to a male whose partner has been diagnosed with HPV.

In the interest of public service and reducing the spread of disease through easy access to information, it may be worth refocusing the initial paragraphs to address the key basics about risks (e.g. cancer), transmission (more specifics here would help, as "environmentally", "casual skin-to-skin contact", and "sexually" are all listed), and prevention.

Wikipedia becomes a more mainstream reference every day. I'm certainly not suggesting that the entire article be "dumbed down". But not everyone who comes to this page is a scientist, doctor, or even has an average IQ or better. Those who need more information will read further down. But many may not get past the top-most page. Just a thought. -- MKC 14:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to add the following recent news item about research from Hopkins to the HPV-induced disease section 2.3 Cancer. I'm a new member and have no axe to grind.

In an article on Newswise [2] Johns Hopkins researchers conclude that human papillomavirus (HPV) causes some throat cancers in both men and women. Reporting in the May 10 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers find that oral HPV infection is the strongest risk factor for the disease, regardless of tobacco and alcohol use, and having multiple oral sex partners tops the list of sex practices that boost risk for the HPV-linked cancer.

Cville roger 16:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC) [User:cville roger] 12:30, 15 May 2007

[edit] The HPV Test

I see information about prevention and about the vaccine, but I don't see any information about The HPV Test that can help detect whether or not a person has the virus. Some valuable information can be found at The HPV TEST and might be a valuable addition to this wikipedia page. --TrisDG 16:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)TrisDG

++Pap test information++

I just found out from my doctor that vaginal lubricants can invalidate the test. Here is a link which also says that" http://www.pathology.med.umich.edu/Handbook/details.php?testID=1241&PHPSESSID=7b3604a724508eb87fac4e36bf52bbb1 I have been getting this test for many many years and no one has said this before and NO ONE has ever said, do not use a lubricant for X number of days prior to coming in to the office. If this is accurate information, and it seems to be, it should be included in a discussion of the test and in the doctors office too. Thanks

[edit] General discussion

I know a number of women who have HPV, and think it really sucks, and feel like sex ed failed to warn them of the dangers. I think this article very significantly downplays some of the dangers.

First, I'm not sure if it's fair to imply HPV goes away within 1 year. It doesn't -- some forms will cause irregular pap smears and will contribute to cancer for the rest of your life.

Second, while HPV is endemic, the "bad" forms of HPV aren't yet (the kinds that cause cancer, warts, or other problems) -- lots of people have them, but nowhere near 80% (this figure should be supported more strongly -- it seemed weaker in the source), so it's not fair to imply that "HPV is an almost unavoidable, and invisible consequence of sexual activity." It's really not. With one partner over a lifetime (or a very small number), you probably won't get a bad type. With many partners, you'll almost certainly have to go in for pap smears every few months. It's not as bad as AIDS in symptoms, but it sucks. With future partners, you'll either need to be dishonest about it (not mention you got it, or lie about having it), or you'll have a much harder time getting laid. If you do get laid, you'll spread it more. It's a very bad thing.

One other note: there's research that implies a connection between HPV and reoccurent urinary tract infections. It might be good to confirm how good this research is, and put up something about it. I saw it on a pretty sketchy web site, but it linked to a real medical article (http://www.health-science-report.com/cgi-bin/alotek.cgi?topics=1&article=111). I don't have access to the original article, so I can't confirm if it is being misquoted.

Read the JAMA study on HPV prevalence among women aged 14-59 <http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/8/813>. It contradicts a good deal of what you're saying. The high risk, or "bad" forms as you put it, are prevalent in 15.2% of women. This refers only to current infection, detected by an HPV DNA test, not to history of infection, which is indicated by a antibody test. Furthermore, young women aged 20-29 have an infection prevalence of about 30% for high-risk types, according to figure 1 <http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/8/813/JOC70010F1>. So, yes, infection with high risk HPV types is almost as common as infection with the low-risk types.
Also interesting, a study on the seroprevalence of HPV 16 antibodies (which indicates a history of infection, not necessarily a current infection) indicates that, among women aged 12-59, 17.8% have or have had an infection with HPV type 16 <http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/344354>. Furthermore, among women aged 20-29, this number spikes to 24.7%. Among women of any age with 2-4 lifetime sexual partners, the HPV 16 antibody seroprevalence is 20.7%. Keep in mind, these numbers reflect only 1 of the high-risk types, which accounts for about 50% of cervical cancers in the US.
So, yes, HPV (even the high-risk) forms are very common among sexually active women. The estimate that 80% of sexually active women will contract at least one form in their lifetimes seems on the mark. Yet still, cervical cancer rates in the United States are very low, about 12,000 new cases each year. The fact is that in the vast majority of people who acquire HPV will show no symptoms, even if their infection is with the high-risk types. Very few infections progress to cervical cancer. The most important thing to stress is that condom use does effectively reduce the rate of transmission, by about 70% and regular Pap tests should detect most persistent infections, which can be treated and, usually, cleared.
I don't mean to downplay the potential danger of persistent high-risk HPV infections, but there is a good deal of fear-mongering going on here. Play it safe, use a condom, but losing sleep over the potential of an HPV infection is not a good use of your time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.61.75 (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
Why, the article doesn't downplay the dangers. It clearly says that although HPV can infect unprotected skin areas, other studies indicate that condoms can be up to 70% effective in preventing infection if used every time, AND, if used every time, they can effectively limit ongoing persistence and spread of HPV to additional genital sites in already infected individuals. In other words, it's important not to get infected twice. I would also add that since estimated half of population have some kind of HPV, and we now have a vaccine against HPV-induced cancer, HPV spread should be encouraged because with 9 out of 10 people having it, it will become a non-issue. "Oh, you have HPV? That's ok, today everyone does".69.107.71.8 04:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The text on this page is identical to http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdhpv.htm

I'm guessing that's a US govmt source, so we can use it. COuld someone confirm?

(same applied to Genital wart, I cut some text and moved it there -- Tarquin 11:19 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC))

It doesn't matter at all, since works of the U.S. federal government are public domain. Of course, that source isn't really an encyclopedic entry. The page is completely different now, though it also seems to be lacking adequate detail, considering how widespread a disease it is.. —User:Mulad (talk) 16:30, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

From the American Cancer Society Website: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_What_are_the_risk_factors_for_cervical_cancer_8.asp?rnav=cri

"...condoms do not protect against HPV..."
"...certain types of sexual behavior increase a woman's risk of getting HPV: sex at an early age, having many sexual partners, having sex with uncircumcised males..."
"...it is necessary to have had HPV for cervical cancer to develop..."
I know circumcision is the norm in the US, but it bothers me rather a lot that I'm effectively accused of putting women at risk of cancer by not mutilating myself. What's the science behind that? There's no actual explanation on that page. Chris 11:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a statistically insignificant increase in HPV transmission from uncircumsized men to females and other men (and vise-versa in both cases). This doesnt mean that the same will hold true through more study. ITs rather doubtful should a firm and significant link be found that it would be related to the actual pysical functioning of the genitallia, but rahter realted to lifestyle. More firmly religious people are cicumsized per capita than religiously liberal and non-religious peoples; which makes it probable that they are havign more sex with more partners. In any case, a condom pretty much solves the problem aside from rare cases where HPV is spread even with the use of a condom in which case circumsision has nothing to do with it anyway. --LouieS 03:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a good friend who had cervical cancer 2 years ago and it was not from HPV. She told me that there were, I think, 6 other women who had the cervical cancer she had and none were from an STI and that they were all being written up in medical journals. She was the youngest of the 6 or 7 and she is the only one who lived. So, for what it's worth, I take issue with the statement that 100% of cervical cancer is caused by HPV. I'm sorry I don't have any medical references for this, maybe someone with better access to medical journals could find something.

Also I'm confused that the beginning of the article states, "HPV infection is a necessary factor in the development of nearly all cases of cervical cancer," which would support my statement above; but then under "HPV-induced diseases:Cancer" it says, "...women with no history of the virus do not develop this type of cancer." Which is it - it causes NEARLY ALL cases or it's impossible to get cervical cancer without history of HPV? Or am I reading this incorrectly? I understand it's two different sources, but perhaps this article could choose one over the other or be more specific. 67.170.222.207 09:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I brought this up as well, this improper use of the term all. Apparently my comment was deleted, but this really is an issue for me and others. 99% is the bare minimum percentage acheived before you should use the term all (medically it is 99%, scientifically it is 99.9%). The best estimates I have seen put the cancer/HPV link at 90%, well below the threshold for such rigid language.

[edit] expand

this needs more info.

  • how is it transmitted? other sites say by "skin to skin contact". but you can't get it from holding hands. what do they mean exactly?
  • does the virus stay in your body and contagious after the symptoms have cleared up? can you still give it to others? does it ever fully disappear? (i believe the virus stays in one's body and contagious forever).
  • does it create symptoms in both men and women? (i believe symptoms in men are rare)
  • a google search shows several different vaccine studies. can we get more details about them?

You CAN get HPV from holding hands and kissing, HPV is simply a virus that causes warts of any kind, not only genital warts; though genital warts can be spread even without sexual activity. The virus staying in your body depends upon they type, many types a killed through an immune respose within eight months (sourced from NIAID), HPV can be sprad to others without and symptoms present. Symptoms in women are more frequent but less often noticed. There is a vaccine in the works effective agains 16, 18, and 31 i believe which are the main HPV contributors to cancer. Though HPV is NOT the only way for cervical cancer to develop though it is the most common cause, I don't know where ACS gets their facts from, but those are bad ones. http://www.ashastd.org/hpvccrc/patientfaq.html --LouieS 18:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] taxonomy of HPV

The taxonomy of HPV has changed. E-M De Villiers et al publication in 2004 indicateds that Papillomavirus is the Family. alpha is the genus species 9 is one of the oncogenic species and within species 9 are the oncogenic types: including type 16. Within HPV type 16 are the variants of HPV 16 that make it slightly different the world round.

[edit] NPOV; sources

The article seems to the lack the former and needs the latter. Andre (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I can work on it some, what in particular strikes you as needing work? Delldot 18:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "student"?

"HPV is a student..."? (Complete with a link to "student" entry)

I assume this a typo for "virus"?

Yeah, that was vandalism. The person's been warned. Thanks for noticing! Delldot 18:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and quotes in controversy section

I tried to NPOV the Controversy section of the article by representing the other side as well, though if you think I've gone too far in that direction you might tweak it some or add more info.

Also, I was concerned because there was a quotation in there that wasn't cited. There were three sets of quotes. Here's how it looked: "Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage...'I've talked to some who have said, "This is going to sabotage our abstinence message,' " said Gene Rudd, associate executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations. So I removed the outer set of quotes. Does anyone know who we're qoting with the outside quotes? I was worried this text might be cut and pasted from somewhere. Thanks, delldot | talk 18:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] oncogenic HPV

The reference below disputes that HPV 16 & HPV 18 are the most common. I wonder whether this is due to geographical variation (like HIV-1, the primary strain in North America, vs. HIV-2, the primary strain in Africa).

Anyone have an idea about the geographic variance of HPV strains?

Andersson S, Mints M, Sallstrom J, Wilander E. The relative distribution of oncogenic types of human papillomavirus in benign, pre-malignant and malignant cervical biopsies. A study with human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid sequence analysis. Cancer Detect Prev. 2005;29(1):37-41. Epub 2005 Jan 26. PMID 15734215

Nephron 00:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing out on treatments.

[[It could be helpful if there was information regarding how the infection can be treated - what treatment can be offered to a victim. As it says there has been found no cure then we know that, but options of treatments are an important part. Correct me if I am wrong - I might not be seeing it. ]]

Since the treatments for common warts, genital warts, cervical pre-cancer and cervical cancer are very different, I think detailed discussion of treatment options belongs in those separate articles. Retroid 22:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] treatments

Treatments: medications, freeze warts, laser treatment, cutting and radiation (cancer).

[edit] What are these magical words?

...whose mission is to generate a cornified layer that seals the body and prevents dessecation. In this upper layer the late viral proteins L1 and L2 are expressed. They bind the viral DNA and autoassemble, giving rise to the complete virions, ready for a new infection, that are released as the dead keratinocytes descamate...

The first word dessecation? Is this passage really talking about dehydration? Secondly, descamate??? Is not a word that I can find at all, but is apparently a googlewhack.

Was this just vandalism, or a misspelling of a real word? I am not studying biology, so I really haven't a clue.

-Redwraith9

first time at site; these look like dessicate and desquamate. Sfahey 20:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rearrangement

This discussion page leads me to believe that most people who arrive at this article are primarily interested in HPV-related diseases. I therefore moved the general discussion of papillomavirus biology to the main article Papillomavirus. I also attempted to re-focus the intro and put the various HPV-related diseases in perspective. I think the Effects section could be organized a little better, but I wanted to give people a chance to object to the current changes first. I'm compiling a list of HPV-related articles on my Talk page - feel free to modify. Retroid 13:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree the articles (still) have too much overlap, and with (I expect) many more visitors here than to "papillomavirus" it's strange to refer to the latter in the lead paragraph as the "main" article. It seems to me that the best option for divvying up info between "P" and "HPV" should be 1) "HPV" having a brief "Biology of ..." section, with a header saying "See "P""; and 2) "P" having a brief "HPV and human disease" section, with a header saying "Main article: "HPV"". On a different note I am going to move those annoying top of the page comments down "below the box." Sfahey 21:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HPV 6-11

Can a person contract the virus from merely touching the virgina with a hand, no prenetration?

Probably yes. Some epidemiological studies have found that adolescents begin to acquire genital HPV infections prior to engaging in penetrative sexual contact. It's therefore thought that mutual genital "petting" can result in transmission of genital HPV infections. Retroid 22:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prevention

There are problems in the passage about prevention: "Sexually-transmitted HPV infections may be distributed widely over genital skin and mucosal surfaces, and transmission can occur even when there are no visible symptoms. Thus, the only sure way to prevent genital HPV infection is to abstain from any contact with the genitals of another."

There is a logical flaw in this statement. Assuming all else is true the second sentence could be reworded as: "Thus, the only sure way to prevent sexually-transmitted HPV infections is to abstain from any contact with the genitals of another"

This may still be incorrect, eg. if another person could touch their infected genitals and then touch yours and infect you.

If the only way (other than childbirth) that HPV can only be spread is through "sexual" contact, then "Sexually-transmitted HPV" would be better worded as "All post-natal transmission of HPV is through sexual activity", or more acurately: "All post-natal transmission of HPV occurs through direct genital to genital contact."

I don't know what the situation is, but the current wording needs to be changed.

You could say, "The only sure way to avoid genital HPV infection would be lifelong sexual abstinence." That's technically accurate since it's thought that occasional infection of infants during birth is generally oral/respiratory (not genital). Anyway, even the reformulated sentence bugs me because it doesn't seem like especially useful advice for most folks. How about "People with greater numbers of sexual partners are at increased risk of developing HPV-related diseases."
The Prevention section could cover A) Pap smear and new HPV DNA tests, B) the new HPV vaccine, C) limiting # of sexual partners, D) condoms, E) topical microbicides.
Retroid 22:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Oops, wasn't signed in when I implemented the above changes. 69.140.22.184 is me.
Retroid 18:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good

I probably shouldn't nominated since I once upon a time edited this article, but this is rapidly approaching good/featured article status. Maybe a pass through peer review? Anyway, congrats to Retroid, et al. jengod 08:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe after the introduction is sorted a bit more. It's huge. 72.48.26.130 07:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Some material from Papillomavirus sneaked into the Intro section - in my opinion it resulted in some redundancy and a few bits of relatively arcane biology. I consolidated the redundancies and stripped out the arcane factoids. My theory is that the great majority of people arriving at this article are investigating A) Merck's "a virus causes cancer?!" vaccine ads, B) an abnormal pap smear, C) warts of some kind. So I'm with User 72.48.26.130 - the Intro should be terse and focus on HPV diseases. Retroid 23:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
See also Talk page for main article Papillomavirus. Retroid 14:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On another note

The article would benefit from an actual cosmetic image of the HPV symptoms (warts etc) on a living human subject.

Image of Pap smear cells does the job nicely - good one, Euthman! Retroid 14:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This is about the virus; pictures of genital warts belong in genital warts. — Omegatron 23:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some additions

I found the articles about Apoptosis and Necrosis linking to this page, I was checking for a place to insert a link about 'Apoptosis' in this article which may reveal informative on the subject, but I wasn't sure if it would apply to warts in general or common/plantar warts, or where I could insert it, a new text, in the current text or references. --TiCPU 18:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

One function of the papillomavirus oncogenes E6 and E7 is prevention of apoptosis. I added a link to Apoptosis in an appropriate spot in the main article Papillomavirus (and vice versa). Retroid 14:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

(New User here:) I wonder about the word "ASCUS" in the section labeled Prevention. This word isn't linked to anything. It's thrown around by my doc regularly, but yet I do not know what it means. When I look it up in the dictionary, it just talks about fungus. When I look in wiki it says the same thing. Can someone with some medical knowledge give a definition for this word and place it in this article. (Or write a little wiki page and link to there???) This user would be very appreciative.

[edit] Western disease?

Is this disease prevalent outside the West? I'm pretty sure it isn't.

So, if you haven't read: the answer is yes, in fact more so outside of the "west". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.7 (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Becuase only people in the West fuck? --Lincoln F. Stern 19:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In my personal experience it's prevalent (as in an issue that is big enough to attract goverment and media attention) in Singapore. --PeterMarkSmith 03:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

HPV-associated cervical neoplasia is leading cause of dead from cancer in women in developing countries. in developed countries its second just behind breast cancer. thanks to early detection, pap smear etc. Xmort 14:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


It's classically a disease of poverty, presumably something to do with early and frequent sexual partners. I've had a very quick look on Medline for recent reviews: "Child marriage is driven by poverty and has many effects on girls' health: increased risk for sexually transmitted diseases, cervical cancer, malaria, death during childbirth, and obstetric fistulas." Nour, Nawal M. Health consequences of child marriage in Africa. [Review] [40 refs] Emerging Infectious Diseases. 12(11):1644-9, 2006 Nov.

"incidence rates ranging from 3.8 per 100,000 women per year in Israel to 48.2 per 100,000 per year in Colombia." Haverkos, H. Rohrer, M. Pickworth, W. The cause of invasive cervical cancer could be multifactorial. [Review] [47 refs] Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy. 54(1):54-9, 2000 Feb.

However, greater sexual freedom and more cigarettes in many developed countries also contribute: "In Finland, there has between 1991 and 1995 been a 60% increase in the incidence of cervical cancer among women <55 years of age. Trends in detection rates of cervical cancer precursor lesions are consistent with an increase in the background cervical cancer risk. From the 1960s to 1980s, there has been a major increase in HPV seroprevalences over time in the Nordic countries. Increasing trends are also seen for other sexually transmitted diseases and smoking." Dillner, J. Trends over time in the incidence of cervical neoplasia in comparison to trends over time in human papillomavirus infection. [Review] [76 refs] Journal of Clinical Virology. 19(1-2):7-23, 2000 Oct.

Richard Keatinge 10:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External link

A well written article has been written that summarized treatment of HPV in "college-age" patients. This article is located at http://www.collegehealth-e.com/4/n02.htm any thoughts?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.172.67 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 9 October 2006
This user was adding www.collegehealth-e.com links to multiple medical articles. And has now engaged in dialogue - thank you. The articles are well written and, more importantly, well sourced. The problem is more of whether content should be added to wikipedia articles or external links. Ideally no external link should be made if it fails to add greater information than the finished article should have once it reaches featured-article status. In this case I think the collegehealth-e.com is generally more detailed. Secondly wikipedia is not here to act as a link to other sources - we don't have one-to-one links to the equivalent article at Encyclopaedia Britannica or Encarta - yet I appreciate that collegehealth-e.com is not trying to be an encyclopaedia on all topics. I am more uncertain the more collegehealth-e.com articles I look at, perhaps this is a useful resource? But if so, should it be a standard external link resource provided by Template:Disease infobox ?
Certainly populating multiple wikipedia articles without discussion strikes me as probably spamming... I'm going to raise the issue of the general appropriateness/usefulness of collegehealth-e.com links at the Clinical Medicine wikiproject – so please join discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine#www.collegehealth-e.com links. David Ruben Talk 03:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incidence vs. Age Graph

Shouldn't the incidence vs. age graph have some sort of metric on the y-axis? Ahhwhereami 01:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Yes, absolutely it should. As it stands, the graph is at best uninformative, and at worst misleading. I propose that the graph be removed in a timely manner if a more detailed and accurate replacement cannot be found.

68.46.236.223 (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC) ---

Actually, I just removed it, myself. If someone has a better graph with a source, feel free to replace it. No sense in leaving the old graph up, bad as it was.

68.46.236.223 (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Risk for Anal Cancer -- So WHY not adminstered to young men!!!

Why is the vaccine only approved for women?

I guess cervical cancer in heterosexual women of child-bearing age is more important than anal cancer in young gay/bisexual men.

Maybe they think vaccinating males will encourage them to have buttsex? --Lincoln F. Stern 19:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
They can't test men for the virus, thus they would have no way of knowing whether or not the vaccine worked. Pelargonium 09:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Pelargonium

[edit] cited sources - reference list

I noticed that recent edits cite a source (Richman) but do not include the full citation for the book or article in the reference list. I've requested this from the (new) editor HEYNURSIE on their talk page. Keesiewonder 11:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 75% figure?

Baseman and Koutksy, 2005 does NOT have any reference to the quote that "with estimates suggesting that up to 75% of women will become infected with one or more of the sexually transmitted HPV types at some point during adulthood (Baseman and Koutsky, 2005)" Matter of fact, the number "75" is not in the text.

In the paper, it does say that >50% of women will contract one of the HPVs at some point. In the reference section of this Wikipedia article, someone states that "Note: the abstract of this paper states that 60% of initially HPV-negative women became infected over the course of five years of follow-up. 20% of the women in the study population were already infected at the onset of the study. This supports the conservative 75% figure given in the introduction section."

This may indeed be true for the Woodman study of English girls (ages 15-19), but may not be sufficient for generalization. At the very least, the 75% number needs a confirmatory reference, as Baseman and Koutsky's 2005 paper cannot be used as justification. 129.74.81.217 19:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC) jKay

[edit] Oropharyngeal in NEJoM

How do I add "et al" to a citation? I only listed the first three authors. Darkfrog24 21:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than breaking the author list into author1/2/3, I find it more useful to stick with the Pubmed-style
{{cite journal | author = Smith J, Jones DE, Wilson PS, et al | title = ...
when using the cite templates, which also gets around the problem you've noted. -- MarcoTolo 21:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if there is any need but there is a BCC discussion of the paper here [3]. Nil Einne 13:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... It's probably best to put the real source as the footnote, but this is much easier to read. NEJoM is practically Sanskrit to many readers. Maybe we should add the BCC discussion as an external link.Darkfrog24 13:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smoking section

I modified this a bit in light of newer studies which have shown that smoking increases risk by at least 2x (and possibly over 4x), as well as questioning whether folic acid does significant good. See, for example, Folate, vitamin B12, and homocysteine status, findings of no relation between human papillomavirus persistence and cervical dysplasia. (Sedjo RL, Fowler BM, Schneider A, Henning SM, Hatch K, Giuliano AR; Nutrition, 2003 Jun;19(6):497-502; PMID 12781848) Fnordius 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

While this is certainly applicable to cervical cancer in general, smoking seems a bit extraneous to an article about HPV. What do you guys think? Darkfrog24 13:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New graph

What do people think of the new HPV incidence graph? I think it illustrates useful concepts, but the y-axis ('incidence') is unitless. I'm of two minds about it. 70.95.251.152 05:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC) jKay

  • I agree it would be nice to have units for the incidence axis. —PHaze 22:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am worried of having HPV

Dear Sirs,

I am ---, an MA student in Counseling Psycology. I am a young girl of 25. I am afraid i have HPV, as i have noticed now enlarging genital warts. I am worried. Please adice.

Sincerely yours

---

See a doctor. Your university clinic can probably offer you relative anonymity and decent fees. If not, look up "free clinic" or "anonymous clinic" with your zip code. For the record, wikipedia talk pages are not the place to discuss things other than the articles at hand. Darkfrog24 13:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed the name from the MA student's post above, since it was non-essential, and the post looks like a possible defamation attempt.

68.46.236.223 (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restored citation

This edit was made with the summary "Removed, irrelevant, citation did not mention statement". The citation in question (PubMed) has the following statement on the second page:

"Based on the high prevalence of cancer of the cervix in prostitutes and its virtual absence in nuns, he postulated that a sexually transmitted agent causes this cancer."

Thus, I have restored the paragraph. -- MarcoTolo 19:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Might want to add a few details

Although it says that HPV can be transmitted without sex, and that hand warts do not "usually" cause genital warts, is that possible? How likely is that occurrence? Have any studies been done on the matter? Is there any way of getting genital warts without having sex with an infected person, or touching the genitals of an infected person? I read that "Only certain types of HPV cause genital warts. Other types, not related to genital warts, can cause abnormal cell changes on the genital skin, usually on a female's cervix." on http://www.ashastd.org/learn/learn_hpv_warts.cfm. How can one tell if a wart is simply a wart on the genital skin, or a genital wart, which would indicate a different virus? In what ways would this affect treatment? Also,do genital warts look the same as skin warts? Are we allowed to have a picture of genital warts on wikipedia? Because it might be helpful to be able to see a picture, even if somebody just included a link (thus making viewing optional). 75.26.189.55 09:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Rebecca

[edit] Diindolylmethane

I removed the following new content from the main page:

Respiratory Papillomatosis Patients are currently recommended to take Diindolylmethane (DIM) as a treatment. This compound, native to Brassica vegetables, is also currently in Phase III clinical trials for Cervical Dysplasia and may soon become recognized as a therapeutic for this condition caused by HPV. DIM is currently also undergoing clinical investigations as a natural therapeutic candidate for other HPV infections.
The Diindolylmethane Information Resource Center at the University of California, Berkeley provides regularly updated information on recent scientific discoveries regarding this phytochemical from Brassica vegetables and its clinical use as a therpeutic for HPV.

I have two concerns. First, this page seems to be set up to direct users to specific disease pages for discussions of treatment, so unless we decide to change this, the appropriate locations for this content are on the pages Respiratory papillomatosis (actually a redirect to laryngeal papillomatosis) and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Second, I was unable to confirm that DIM or related compounds are an established treatment for any human disease (i.e. RRP). This January 2007 review article - (PMID 17317210) - refers to promising results in "small preliminary trials" for both CIN and RRP, and states that definitive randomized trails have not been completed to date. It does not seem that RRP patients "are currently reccomended to take Diindolylmethane" outside of a research trial.-RustavoTalk/Contribs 01:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Rustavo, it looks like you forgot to actually remove the info from the main page, so I just took care of it. If anyone can verify that diindolylmethane is now a currently recommended treatment for any HPV induced disease, please add this information (with citation hopefully) to the relevant disease page. —PHaze 17:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user re-added diindolylmethane information to the article. I have been unable to verify any of the claims made therein, so I reverted the additions. —PHaze 01:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been added again, still without the citation called for by PHaze and without addressing Rustavo's point that material relating to treatment of HPV-related diseases is inappropriate here. Therefore, I've removed it again. JamesMLane t c 05:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HPV tree graphic ...

This graphic includes a measure of scale ("0.05") but does not indicate the units, whether physical dimensions or otherwise. What does the length of the lines represent? Spazquest 05:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discrepancies

In the section Public Health and Genital HPVs a sentence states "he Food and Drug Administration FDA and CDC recommend that girls and women between the ages of 12 and 26 be vaccinated." but in section Vaccine a sentence similarly states "The Food and Drug Administration FDA and CDC recommend that girls and women between the ages of 9 and 26 be vaccinated."

Can this be rectified??

Also, I think this article is missing some really important information. What is the effectiveness of the vaccine versus age? I ask because on NPR they were discussing why it is more important for young girls to be vaccinated for maximum effectiveness. I don't remember all of it but to paraphrase they said that the effectiveness decreases exponentially once a girl reaches sixteen, or something like that.

I would just like to get this information clarified or maybe cited. thanks Joelotz 06:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've updated and cited the recommendations (girls and women 11-26 per the CDC). Technically, the FDA has approved Gardasil for "girls and women age 9-26"[4], but it is the CDC which makes the public health recommendation. The "maximum effectiveness" issue is typically a function of getting girls vaccinated before the onset of sexual activity. I wasn't able to find the NPR story you're referring to - could you point me to it so I can see if this is a different topic? -- MarcoTolo 19:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Hang on for a sec - there are safety concerns regarding Gardasil. The claim that "no side effects" exist is certainly wrong; the de:Paul-Ehrlich-Institut has recorded 189 cases of adverse reactions after Gardasil vaccination in Germany in less than a year. There have been at least 2 cases of SADS in close temporal vicinity with Gardasil vaccination. If you know German, see the news article here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dysmorodrepanis (talk • contribs) 12:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Update (German text) - the wording is a bit fishy. Confidence in vaccine safety is publicly restored, and the deaths are "tragic" but bear no connection to Gardasil vaccination, and so on. Something seems to be going on behind the scenes, if you can read German check out the weasel wording. We know for a fact that 2 cases of SADS ocurred in close temporal proximity to Gardasil vaccination. Everything else is speculation at this point. But to German native speakers, the way they phrased it suggests that we're far from hearing the last of it. It's a bit too much "regrettable collateral damage" in there:

"Dabei wurde von Prof. Löwer festgehalten, dass die beiden tragischen Todesfällen im deutschsprachigen Raum, auch bei intensiver Untersuchung, einschließlich gerichtsmedizinischer Obduktion und biochemische Diagnostik in keiner Weise in Zusammenhang mit der erfolgten HPV-Impfung stehen. [...] Die Verunsicherung der Bevölkerung durch die Medien wird von den drei herausragenden Instituten abgelehnt und insbesondere wird vor unbegründeter Panik gewarnt."

("Prof. Löwer noted that the two tragic deaths in German-speaking countries after intense study, including forensic autopsy and biochemical diagnostics, are not causally connected in any way with the HPV vaccination. [...] FUDing the population at large by the [mass] media is denounced by the [PEI, EMEA, and CDC] and it was especially warned of groundless panic." [my italics])
The text goes on to state:

Obwohl die gesammelten Untersuchungsergebnisse der Obduktion keinerlei Hinweise auf die Ursache des Todes der jungen Frau ergaben, hat das Paul Ehrlich Institut ebenfalls eigene zusätzliche Untersuchungen veranlasst, die bis zum heutigen Tag keinen Hinweis auf einen Zusammenhang des Todesfalls mit dem Impfstoff ergeben haben.

In Österreich verstarb es eine 19-jährige Frau drei Wochen nach der ersten Impfung. Auch hier konnte in der Obduktion keinen Zusammenhang mit der Impfung, aber auch keine sonstige Todesursache, nachgewiesen werden.

("Although the accumulated study results of the autopsy gave no indication at all concerning the cause of death of the young woman [from Germany], the PEI ordered additional investigations on its own, which til today gave no indication of a connection between the vaccine and the death.
In Austria a young woman died three weeks after the first vaccination shot. Here too no connection to the vaccination, but neither with any other cause of death could be found in an autopsy." [my italics])
My scientific ethos riles at the suggestion that "no cause determinable" = "cause xyz has been falsified". And maybe I read too few tabloids, or I underestimate the anti-vaccination movement in Germany; I always thought it was a tiny lunatic fringe. But from where I am I can see no indcation for a mass media FUD or a "panic" of any sorts.
The PEI is a respected and professional institution. They could have said: "we don't have an explanation at this point but this is normal in SADS cases; the matter remains under investigation but it certainly is not so that Gardasil vaccination can be considered generally risky." Instead they chose to say: "we have no idea why these deaths occurred but we know that Gardasil is safe and don't trust the media, they're trying to BS you."
I am at a total loss here. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of discovering link between virus and cancer

There's a lot of lifestyle differences between female prostitutes and nuns. Surely sex is just the obvious one to the male mindset . The given reference says nothing about prostitutes or nuns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.225.44 (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The history section in Cervical Cancer might help to improve this. It offers a little more detail, and a reference (albeit not a very complete one). "(Rigoni in 1841)" Zodon (talk) 08:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vaccination

I removed the sentence "To eradicate the disease, men and boys will eventually need to be vaccinated." as seems to be an expression of an opinion or a misquote. The opinion may make good sense, however, the given reference to WebMD did not link to any article. The closest I could find looking in WebMD was at link [5] titled "HPV Virus in Men", within the section 'HPV Vaccine for Men?' stating: "The HPV vaccine Gardasil, approved for use in women in 2006, is not yet approved for men. Studies are still being done to determine if the vaccine works in males. Eventually, public health experts say, boys and men may be vaccinated."

The remaining statement which I left under the Vaccination section was "HPV can infect both men and women", and I linked that to a currently existing WebMD article.

There appear to be quite a few WebMD links within the vaccination section and scattered around. WebMD may be overused in this section as a link, as this website appears to serve as a summary of findings made and published by others, therefore, may be more likely to contain opinions, rather than only researched based factual information.

In researching the statement at the bottom of the Vaccination section, which pertains to HPV vaccination in England, a citation is missing. I didn't know how to indicate the need for that, but as it appears likely to be true, though totally uncited, I left it. (I do wonder about the need for a reference specific to the United Kingdom vaccination policy in this section though. Per Merck, something like 48 countries have approved the vaccine and perhaps a more general note to that effect would be appropriate instead.) Anyway, in trying to find confirmation of the UK info cited, I did find at: <http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/jcvi/mins-hpv-280207.htm>, an article of meeting minutes relating to HPV findings by the United Kingdom's Department of Health. Section 18, approximately paragraph 18, appears to contradict the statement that elimination of the HPV virus would require vaccination of men and infers that study findings did not indicate a significant improvement in HPV prevalence in a highly vaccinated population of women, due to 'herd immunity'. I would add that, in my opinion, this may also contain some assumptions and may overlook the possibility of continued HPV spread via gay males.

If another source exists which pertains to the benefit of vaccinating males, feel free to add this information back, along with a working citation to an authoritative source. However, the Vaccination section seems to be pretty well done, so perhaps any significant new information on that subject would be better added to the main article "HPV Vaccination".

Personally, as the US has a high prostate cancer incidence, I would be quite interested to know if any studies have been performed to examine whether any prostate cancers are related to HPV. Some other information about HPV clearance in women (such as intake of lykopene and other nutrients), appears to link up with reduced prostate cancer in men, and I find myself wondering if these might be linked. This seems worthwhile exploring and if information relating to this exists, this would be a good addition to this section. I also wonder if the failure in clearance of HPV in some women is related to carriage of HPV by her partner and, if so, I wonder where the HPV reservoir in her male partner might be. To me, the prostate would seem to be a good candidate to look at for that. Why are many prostate cancers slow growing and a smaller number of others aggressive and fast growing? Would infection with specific HPV types account for that as in women? The vaccine manufacturors seem not to have considered or explored this at all that I can find.

Once another HPV vaccine becomes available, this section will need further clean-up, and perhaps trimmed down, with more information moved onto the HPV vaccination page. The focus in this section is now focused primarily on the currently approved and available Merck HPV vaccine. Lcph88 (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought that sentence about eradicating cervical ca. was questionable also. I didn't check the ref, but removal seems reasonable.
You can indicate that a reference is needed with the {{fact}} tag. There are others for debatable (which can link to a discussion) too.
On the prostate cancer question, a quick Google turned up this from Fred Hutchinson CRC "No evidence of HPV connection to prostate cancer" http://www.fhcrc.org/about/pubs/center_news/2003/aug21/sart3.html One reason it is harder to study HPV in men is it is more difficult to get reliable samples. (Sampling involves sand paper and the male sex organ.) Zodon (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, both for the info and the link. Lcph88 (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

While I don't have a reference at this time, I believe the vaccination of men and boys both because they are part of the HPV puzzle and because it may help allay concerns in conservative countries and amongst conservative people about the vaccine somehow promoting promisciuty (at least one partner would be protected). However this is probably a long way off since the vaccine hasn't yet been tested in men [6] Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead: remove HPV type numbers

The lead is cumbersome with all the HPV type numbers. They would be better left to the main article. Just thought I'd check before making changes. Pgr94 (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you remove them, please be sure to move them down to the main article (and/or confirm them). That list does not occur elsewhere in the article that I could find. There are other lists, but they aren't the same as that one. Zodon (talk) 08:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Moved, but the section is admittedly weak. It would good to have an explanation of the numbering system, what does it represent (genotypes), who maintains the numbers, etc. Pgr94 (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Common Skin Warts

Added references and links to the National Institutes for Health, but couldn't find links using all descriptive language used in this section. If someone can find more, please add reference citations as appropriate. Lcph88 (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Treatment

The link to "other HPV related diseases" in the Treatment section doesn't lead anywhere. 8 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.129.3 (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Fixed - it was an internal link to the section on diseases, but the section was renamed. Zodon (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Information

I am a medical doctor specializing in internal medicine with 25 years of experience. I found the following information in this article to be incorrect and I’d like to update it to include the correct information. If no one protests the updates below within 48 hours, I’d like to go ahead and make these edits to ensure that Wikipedians receive the correct information as soon as possible. All references are included below.

Existing Text
The last Pap test method is mainly used on women over 30. It is a combination Pap-HPV DNA test.

Updated Text
Another method of cervical cancer screening is the HPV DNA test. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has to date approved one test for high-risk types of HPV, called the Digene® HPV Test. The FDA has approved it, and a number of medical societies have recognized it, for follow-up evaluation of women with inconclusive Paps, as well as for routine screening of all women over 30, along with a Pap.[1][2][3] It can often be done on the same sample of cells collected for the Pap. In addition, some researchers have suggested that the most cost-effective method of cervical cancer screening might be to test women for HPV first, giving the Pap only to those found to have the virus.[4] [5][6]

Drsavard (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested improvements to proposed modification: it needs NPOV improvements and citation for major uncited claim.

Suggest much of the specifics about the HPV test (sentence #2) would be more appropriate in the HPV testing section (e.g. trade name, etc.)
Uncited claim - Need citation to show that HPV DNA testing is a method of cervical cancer screening. It was FDA approved as an adjunct to (not replacement for) Pap smear screening. It was shown to be useful for triage in the presence of an abnormal Pap result by the ALTS trial. There has been speculation that it might be used as a screening test. However none of that shows that it has clinical value as a screening test for cervical cancer. So before can call it a cervical cancer screening test, need a quality citation that says that it is.
Its use for follow-up should be separated from screening, and appropriate sources linked. (Way it is makes it hard to tell which source covers which).
NPOV - Using it for primary screening is speculative, and without balancing material shows distinct POV. Additional material showing other views on this would be necessary for balance. While some may recommend the HPV test, others recommend against it. So could use NPOV improvements.
Hope this helps to improve the addition. Zodon (talk) 08:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


I could certainly separate the citations as you suggest, but I have found it less confusing to women and other healthcare professionals if HPV testing is discussed in a holistic fashion.

Regarding your opinion that the use of HPV testing for primary screening is “speculative,” I must strongly disagree. There is a wealth of clinical data supporting the use of routine HPV testing of women age 30+, in conjunction with cytology. Below is just a sampling of these studies, beginning with the most recent: • Study results suggest that, in women aged 30 + years, co-testing with a Pap smear and HPV DNA test was more sensitive than reflex HPV testing for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions (91% vs. 54%), provided women with a positive hc2 test and negative Pap were referred to colposcopy and biopsy. Janet G. Baseman, Ph.D., Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington (American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, March 2008)

• For both vaccinated and unvaccinated women, age-based screening by use of HPV DNA testing as a triage test for equivocal results in younger women and as a primary screening test in older women is expected to be more cost-effective than current screening recommendations. Sue J. Goldie MD, MPH, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health (Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Feb. 26, 2008)  Compared with cytology, HPV testing has greater sensitivity for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. The sensitivity of HPV testing for CIN grade 2 or 3 was 94.6%, whereas the sensitivity of cytology alone was 55.4%. The sensitivity of both tests used together was 100%, and the specificity was 92.5%. Franco, E. et al. Human Papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou Screening Tests for Cervical Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 2007; 357: 1579-1588.

 Implementation of HPV DNA testing in cervical screening led to a substantial increase in the number of CIN 2/3+ lesions detected at the baseline screening round. At the subsequent round, combined HPV DNA and cytological testing was used in both study groups and significantly fewer CIN 2/3+ lesions were seen in the women who received both tests at the baseline round than in the control group. Therefore, the results show that implementation of HPV DNA testing in cervical screening leads to earlier detection of clinically relevant cervical lesions. Meijer, C. et al. Human papillomavirus DNA testing for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer: 5-year follow-up of a randomized controlled implementation trial. The Lancet 2007; DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61450-0.

 HPV testing in primary screening and HPV vaccination against the most common types have the potential to reduce the incidence of invasive adenocarcinoma. Castellsague, X. et al. Worldwide Human Papillomavirus Etiology of Cervical Adenocarcinoma and Its Cofactors: Implications for Screening and Prevention. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2006; 98: 303-315.  HPV testing is substantially more sensitive in detecting CIN 2+ than cytology (96.1% vs. 53%) but is less specific (90.7% vs.96.3%). In this analysis, the sensitivity of HPV testing was similar in all studies carried out in different areas of Europe and North America, whereas the sensitivity of cytology was highly variable. These results support the use of HPV testing as the sole primary screening test, with cytology reserved for women who test HPV-positive. Cuzick, J. et al. Overview of the European and North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening. International Journal of Cancer 2006; 119: 000-000.  HPV testing alone was more sensitive than conventional cytology among women 35- 60 years old. Adding liquid-based cytology improved sensitivity only marginally, while increasing false-positives. HPV testing using Hybrid Capture 2 with a 2 pg/mL cutoff may be more appropriate than a 1 pg/mL cutoff for primary cervical cancer screening. Ronco, G. et al. Human Papillomavirus Testing and Liquid-Based Cytology: Results at Recruitment From the New Technologies for Cervical Cancer Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2006; 98: 765 – 74.

 Because HPV DNA testing is more sensitive than cervical cytology in detecting CIN 2 and CIN 3, women with negative concurrent test results can be reassured that their risk of unidentified CIN 2 and CIN 3 or cervical cancer is approximately 1 in 1,000. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 61, "Human Papillomavirus. Clinical Management Guidelines for Obstetrician-Gynecologists." April 2005.  The negative predictive value of combined HPV/Pap testing is 99.21% for CIN 3. Sherman M.E., et al. Human Papillomavirus Testing, and Risk for Cervical Neoplasia: A 10-Year Cohort Analysis. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2003;95:46-52.

 In another study of more than 11,000 women, the digene HPV Test was shown to be 97% sensitive for CIN 2+, compared to 77% for conventional Paps resulting in ASC-US or abnormal results. The study also documented that women infected with high-risk HPV and who have normal or borderline cytology can be managed as effectively with repeat testing after 12 months with immediate colposcopy. Cuzick, J. et al. Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART study. The Lancet 2003;362:1871-76.  Still another study demonstrated that HPV testing is a more sensitive indicator of high-grade CIN than either conventional or liquid cytology alone. Screening with both an HPV and Pap test offered a sensitivity and negative predictive value of almost 100%. Twenty-one percent of women who were persistently positive for high-risk HPV DNA types when tested with hc2 were diagnosed with CIN 2/3 within 36 months, compared to only 0.08% of women who were initially HPV-negative. Lorincz, A., Richart, R. Human Papillomavirus DNA Testing As An Adjunct To Cytology In Cervical Screening Programs. APLM 2003;127:959-968.  A study of 8,466 women undergoing routine cervical cancer screening showed that when used in conjunction with a Pap, the sensitivity of the digene HPV Test test was 100% for detection of CIN 2+, while that of the Pap alone was 43.5%. Petry K., et al. Inclusion of HPV testing in routine cervical cancer screening for women above 29 years in Germany: results for 8,466 patients, British Journal of Cancer,2003;88:1570-1577.  Women with persistent HPV infection are more than 300 times more likely than HPV-negative women to develop high-grade cervical disease. Bory J., et al. Recurrent Human Papillomavirus Infection Detected with the Hybrid Capture 2 Assay Selects Women with Normal Cervical Smears at Risk for Developing High Grade Cervical Lesions: A Longitudinal Study of 3,091 Women. Int. J. Cancer, 2002;102:519-525.  In an ASC-US population, the sensitivity of the digene HPV Test for detecting high-grade precursors and cervical cancer is 96%, compared to 85% for a repeat liquid-based Pap test. Solomon D., et al. Comparison of Three Management Strategies for Patients with Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance: Baseline Results from a Randomized Trial, J. Nat Cancer Inst, 2001; 93:293-299.  A cohort analysis of 5,671 women older than 30 (conducted within a larger study of 7,932 women) showed that conventional cytology was 57% sensitive for HSIL; liquid cytology was 84% sensitive, and the digene HPV Test was 100% sensitive. Clavel C., et al. Human Papillomavirus Testing in Primary Screening for the Detection of High-Grade Cervical Lesions: A Study of 7,932 Women. Brit J Cancer, 2001; 89 (12):1616-1623.  High-risk HPV types have been detected in 99.7% of cases of cervical cancer, confirming that the virus must be present for cervical cancer to develop. Walboomers J.M.M., et al. Human Papillomavirus is a Necessary Cause of Invasive Cervical Cancer Worldwide. Journal of Pathology 1999;189:12-19. 71.224.215.219 (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] youngandhealty.ca external link

WhatamIdoing, what is the issue with that link, that led you to delete it, with the provocative comment, "I wonder how many times I'll get to delete this link?" (Just wondering.) NCdave (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The website has relatively little content and is posted by a single-posted account. Actually, by at least two single-purpose accounts, one of which is named after the organization that owns the link, and the occasional anon editor, who "strangely enough" is editing from the same part of the world as the organization. The links are a violation of both WP:EL's provisions (external links should provide more information than the article) and (at least with user User:Caah-Acsa) also WP:COI.
I (and other editors) have deleted the links repeatedly, I've left comments on talk pages, I even thought about finding an e-mail address for them in case they haven't figured out the talk pages, and they still try to use Wikipedia to promote their website. I am a little frustrated with their continuous choice to spam us. I have not, however, asked to have the website blacklisted, because it's in the Wikipedia article that the org wrote about itself, and regular blacklisting would result in it being removed from the org article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! I was just wondering. NCdave (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I know it's quite gross, but perhaps a picture of a HPV infection should be put somewhere in the article. Persoanally I hate such pictures, and believe that wikipedia should allow to see them somehow, but well, it would be informative. Agameofchess (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed category merge

The related Category:Sexually transmitted infections has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

[edit] External link genitalwartsadvisor does not meet EL criteria

The website genitalwartsadvisor.com/human-papillomavirus-hpv which has been repeatedly added to the external links section does not appear to meet WP:EL criteria. Among the problems are WP:LINKSTOAVOID: #1 (not a unique resource beyond what a good Wikipedia article could be) and #11 (it is a personal web page not by a recognized authority on the subject). If you think the site is worth linking to, please explain/discuss here, rather than continually adding it after it has been removed by several editors. Thank you. Zodon (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] women only

why is the section about america relevant only to women? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.175.184 (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the data on HPV prevalence (whether US or elsewhere) is in women partly because it is harder to detect HPV infection in men. (e.g. Sampling involves sand paper and the male sex organ.) Zodon (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)