[abe]

What is the association between HPV infection and cancer?

HPVs are now recognized as the major cause of cervical cancer. Studies also suggest that HPVs may play a role in cancers of the anus, vulva, vagina, and some cancers of the oropharynx (the middle part of the throat that includes the soft palate, the base of the tongue, and the tonsils). Data from several studies also suggest that infection with HPV is a risk factor for penile cancer (cancer of the penis).

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV

PLEASE tell someone. Virus is a major cause of cervical and some other cancers.

[Dark Helmet]

So how can knowing about it protect you from Virus'?

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by abe

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV

PLEASE tell someone. Virus is a major cause of cervical and some other cancers.

All the more reason to buy a Mac.

[smacintush]

Yeah, I read that they had suspected that so I had my wife's cervix removed. Now, without the baby makin' parts her vagina is for one thing and one thing only…

[Ganesha]

There is a very effective vaccine against HPV.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

So how can knowing about it protect you from Virus'?

Wow! Maybe you'll be curious enough to actually click on a provided link!

[abe]

Originally Posted by Ganesha

There is a very effective vaccine against HPV.

Which would make it even more of a shame if someone developed cancer or passed the virus to someone else when they could have been vaccinated.

[Spook E]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Yeah, I read that they had suspected that so I had my wife's cervix removed. Now, without the baby makin' parts her vagina is for one thing and one thing only…

mean, but cool at the same time

[abe]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Yeah, I read that they had suspected that so I had my wife's cervix removed. Now, without the baby makin' parts her vagina is for one thing and one thing only…

Her cervix is where smilies and cute little icons and .gif's come from???

[von Wrangell]

Old news.

[Mastrap]

Ancient news actually, but of course still relevant. I remember my wife talking about this several years ago.

[ghporter]

This is useful information because a woman can protect herself better knowing this and a few more things. Things like something like 85% of HPV infections in men produce NO symptoms. Sure, he doesn't look like he's got something, but appearances can be deceiving. Condoms are quite effective against the variety of HPV viruses.

As for the vaccine, it's not effective against all HPV viruses, only a few.

This is also further evidence that it's a good idea to stay informed about one's own medical status. You might not know you have an infection, particularly one that causes you no problems, but it can be a real problem for someone else. Some close friends tried for well over a year to get pregnant, and failing that, they went to a doctor. It turns out that they both had candidiasis, a relatively benign STI, but one that can and frequently does cause functional infertility (it changes the pH of the vagina such that sperm just cannot survive). They had been completely faithful since well before marriage, but before they met, they were both "relaxed" about whom they slept with; there's no telling which one brought the infection into the relationship-if they both didn't.

[abe]

Originally Posted by ghporter

This is useful information because a woman can protect herself better knowing this and a few more things. Things like something like 85% of HPV infections in men produce NO symptoms. Sure, he doesn't look like he's got something, but appearances can be deceiving. Condoms are quite effective against the variety of HPV viruses.

As for the vaccine, it's not effective against all HPV viruses, only a few.

This is also further evidence that it's a good idea to stay informed about one's own medical status. You might not know you have an infection, particularly one that causes you no problems, but it can be a real problem for someone else. Some close friends tried for well over a year to get pregnant, and failing that, they went to a doctor. It turns out that they both had candidiasis, a relatively benign STI, but one that can and frequently does cause functional infertility (it changes the pH of the vagina such that sperm just cannot survive). They had been completely faithful since well before marriage, but before they met, they were both "relaxed" about whom they slept with; there's no telling which one brought the infection into the relationship-if they both didn't.

Thanks ghporter, for giving our posters reason to think twice about this and if not get themselves checked, to at least spread the word to someone they love.

Even if it is old news to many of you, I JUST heard about it this week for the first time and as we all know sometimes even when you post something in as many as TEN threads, there's only a few people who will see it.

[abe]

FDA Panel Endorses Cervical Cancer Vaccine
WASHINGTON, May. 18, 2006
(AP) A vaccine with the potential to slash worldwide deaths from cervical cancer, the No. 2 cancer killer in women, should be approved for sales in the United States, a federal panel said Thursday.

A Food and Drug Administration advisory committee voted 13-0 to endorse the safety and effectiveness of Merck and Co.'s Gardasil, which blocks viruses that cause cervical cancer. The company said the vaccine could cut worldwide deaths from the disease by two-thirds.

However, the anticipated cost of the vaccine, administered in three shots over six months, is $300 to $500 _ a possible impediment to widespread vaccination campaigns.

The drug protects against the two types of human papillomavirus (HPV) believed responsible for about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. It also protects against two other virus types that cause 90 percent of genital wart cases. All four virus types are sexually transmitted.

The FDA is not required to follow the recommendations of its outside panels of experts, but usually does. An agency decision is expected by June 8.

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted disease. It affects more than 50 percent of sexually active adults. The cervical cancer it can cause kills about 290,000 women worldwide each year, including 3,500 in the United States where regular pap smears often detect precancerous lesions and early cancer.

"This is certainly a wonderful, good step in addition to our screening processes" in helping eradicate cervical cancer, said Dr. Monica Farley, who heads the advisory panel. She is a bacterial infectious disease expert at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.

Early opposition to Gardasil was based on concerns it could encourage sexual activity in preteens and teens. But that largely faded away because of the vaccine's potential for reducing cancer.

Making their case for approval, Merck officials suggested that Gardasil could be the biggest advance in preventing cervical cancer since the pap test.

"Gardasil has the potential to meet an unmet medical need as the first vaccine to prevent cervical cancer," Merck's Dr. Patrick Brill-Edwards told the Vaccine and Related Biological Products advisory committee.

Several speakers said the vaccine should not replace screening. Merck said the vaccine was not intended to do that but that it could eliminate many of the abnormalities the tests turn up.

"We would like to see the FDA mandate some sort of labeling or other mechanism to communicate to health care providers and patients the continued need for regular cervical screening," said Amy Allina, program director of the National Women's Health Network.

Merck said the vaccine could be used in females age 9 to 26, but would work best when given to girls before they begin having sex.

The company is seeking to license Gardasil in more than 50 countries, said Dr. Eliav Barr, who headed the vaccine program at Merck.

Pending action by the FDA, the national Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will decide in June whether to endorse routine vaccination with the vaccine.

The committee's HPV vaccine group is recommending giving the vaccine to girls 11 and 12. The 15-member committee of experts who advise the government will consider recommendations for females 13 to 26. Merck seeks use of the vaccine in girls as young as 9.

Dr. Nancy Miller, an FDA reviewer, cautioned that Gardasil does not necessarily protect against one or more of the four viruses in people already infected before they get the vaccine, and can increase their risk for precursors to cervical cancer.

Also, the drug does not protect against infection from the many other virus strains not included in the vaccine. In addition, FDA staff highlighted in briefing documents five cases where children with birth defects were born to women who received the vaccine around the time of conception. Merck said it was "highly unlikely" they were related to Gardasil.

Merck, based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., developed the vaccine and tested it in more than 27,000 females and males.

Thursday's discussion focused on its use in preventing HPV-related disease in girls and women, including those as young as 9. But only 250 9-year-old girls and boys received Gardasil in trials.

The anticipated cost of the vaccine, administered in three shots over six months, is $300 to $500. That could pose a barrier to widespread vaccination campaigns.

"The vaccine community will see this as an opportunity to prevent cancer. They will also see issues of availability and cost," said Dr. Bruce Gellin, a committee member and head of the federal vaccine policy office.

Analysts believe Gardasil sales could top $1 billion a year for Merck, which is battling thousands of lawsuits over its withdrawn painkiller Vioxx.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...8HMESH00.shtml

In a test of 17,000 women this drug proved 100% effective IIRC.

I will be taking a self imposed break from MacNN of indeterminate length. I may poke my head in here from time to time and or lurk. And this account may also be used by someone else.

Good luck to all and may God bless America.

[CMYKid]

...worst headline ever.

and pretty misleading.

Vaccine for cancer is hardly how it should be described. Anyway, the major HPV vaccine is still in the wings awaiting FDA sign-off.

[ghporter]

Let's break it down...

The vast majority of cervical cancers are caused by a small number of variants of the HPV virus.

There is a vaccine to prevent infection by the most common (and thus most dangerous) of these viruses.

Not being infected by the virus is almost exactly equivalent to not being susceptible to this particular cancer.

Therefore, the vaccine IS a vaccine against cervical cancer.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Let's break it down...

The vast majority of cervical cancers are caused by a small number of variants of the HPV virus.

There is a vaccine to prevent infection by the most common (and thus most dangerous) of these viruses.

Not being infected by the virus is almost exactly equivalent to not being susceptible to this particular cancer.

Therefore, the vaccine IS a vaccine against cervical cancer.

There are only two subtypes, called HPV 16 and HPV 18 that cause cervical cancer. HPV is sexually transmitted. So, you can also practice safe sex and reduce your risk that way as well.

HPV types 6 and 11 are more common (and less dangerous).

[Monique]

And we should trust male doctors because the infailable. I say no.

[CMYKid]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Let's break it down...

yeah, i've got the basic premise thanks. however, aside from there being more than a few variants of HPV and its ilk there are also more than a few conditions and causations that are contributory to cervical cancer. so it's really not at all a straight line, or a line at all, between points A and B.

Mostly I think it's just generally irresponsible for anyone, especially a "respected news organization" to grab readership by announcing "cures" for cancer of any sort.

yeha, i know, it's exactly what you WOULD expect from crap merchants like CNN, et al. Doesnt mean it's good journalism tho.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Monique

And we should trust male doctors because the infailable. I say no.

No, we're not infallible (and neither are female doctors). Ask any gynecologist male OR female, and they'll tell you the same thing I just said, above.

[ghporter]

Person Man, there are only two subtypes proven to cause cervical cancer. They don't even all produce warts. But ALL of them are bad. Sure, using a condom can help, but (gasp with me here, folks) not all sexual contact is genital-to-genital! There's a huge cross infection rate with the HPV types that cause cold sores and those that cause genital warts. Anything that reduces infections by those two specific subtypes is a Good Thing™ for everyone. If it also decreases the incidence of genital warts, that's even better.

And remember that "overwhelming majority of cases" part. These two in particular are the ones studied the most because they are responsible for such a huge majority of cases of cervical cancer.

Further, ANYTHING that reduces ANY cause of cervical cancer is also a Good Thing™. Does anyone disagree with that?

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Person Man, there are only two subtypes proven to cause cervical cancer.

Yes. HPV 16 and HPV 18 are the two that produce cancer.

They don't even all produce warts. But ALL of them are bad.

Yes. HPV types 6 and 11 are the most common, but they are less dangerous than 16 and 18. The vaccine only protects against 16 and 18.

Sure, using a condom can help, but (gasp with me here, folks) not all sexual contact is genital-to-genital!

I know that, too. But practicing safe sex can prevent a lot of STDs. Not all. My point was that the vaccine is not the only way to reduce one's risk of developing cervical cancer.

Further, ANYTHING that reduces ANY cause of cervical cancer is also a Good Thing™. Does anyone disagree with that?

Nope. But people have to realize that the vaccine is NOT a vaccine against cervical cancer. It is against HPV 16 and 18 which are responsible for the majority of, but not all, cervical cancer cases. You can still get cervical cancer and never be infected with any subtype of HPV. This vaccine will NOT prevent those cases.

My main point in posting what I did was to point out that NOT ALL HPV causes cervical cancer, and that the vaccine does not prevent ALL cervical cancer.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Person Man

My main point in posting what I did was to point out that NOT ALL HPV causes cervical cancer, and that the vaccine does not prevent ALL cervical cancer.

Maybe I should mention that I had mumps after being vaccinated against it. No vaccine is 100% effective. But preventing the overwhelming majority of cervical cancers can save over 3700 lives every year just in the U.S. I see your "realism" as minimizing the positive effect this vaccine CAN have. Wearing a seatbelt won't prevent 100% of fatalities in auto accidents. I still use mine EVERY TIME because they reduce the severity of effects on passengers in almost every accident.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I see your "realism" as minimizing the positive effect this vaccine CAN have.

I'm really not trying to minimize anything here.

I'm tired of inaccurate reporting of medical issues by the lay press. Do you know how frustrating it is to explain to patients about things that aren't fully explained by the press? Do you know how frustrating it is when the media jumps to the wrong conclusion about a supposed "breakthrough?"

In the vast majority of cases, after I've explained what a news story means to people, they say "well why didn't they say it on the news that way in the first place?" And the answer is "it wouldn't be sensational if they did it that way. It wouldn't make as much money, etc."

Also:

Originally Posted by abe

In a test of 17,000 women this drug proved 100% effective IIRC.

Wrong. As you (ghporter) pointed out, no vaccine is 100% effective. But some story abe saw led him to believe that.

I'm not trying to minimize the effect the virus can have. I think it's great that thousands of lives could be saved by this. But there are people who are going to read that story and think that all HPV causes cervical cancer, and that the vaccine will prevent all cervical cancer.