Adjuvant Human Papillomavirus Vaccine to Reduce Recurrent Cervical Dysplasia in Unvaccinated Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy of adjuvant human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in preventing recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or greater after surgical excision. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (Cochrane, PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched for studies comparing surgical excision alone to surgical excision with adjuvant HPV vaccination for CIN 2 or greater. Studies published from January 1990 to January 2019 were included. METHODS: A total of 5,901 studies were reviewed. The primary outcomes evaluated included: recurrence of CIN 2 or greater, CIN 1 or greater, and HPV 16,18 associated CIN within 6-48 months. We used Covidence software to assist with screening, and meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Six studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. In total 2,984 women were included; 1,360 (45.6%) received adjuvant HPV vaccination after surgical excision, and 1,624 (54.4%) received either placebo or surgical management alone for CIN 2 or greater. Recurrence of CIN 2 or greater occurred within 6-48 months in 115 women (3.9%) overall; however, recurrence was significantly lower for vaccinated women: 26 of 1,360 women (1.9%) vs 89 of 1,624 unvaccinated women (5.9%) (relative risk [RR] 0.36 95% CI 0.23-0.55). The risk of CIN 1 or greater was also significantly lower with adjuvant HPV vaccination, occurring in 86 of 1,360 vaccinated women (6.3%) vs 157 of 1,624 unvaccinated women (9.7%) (RR 0.67 95% CI 0.52-0.85). Thirty-five women developed recurrent CIN 2 or greater lesions specific to HPV 16,18; nine received adjuvant vaccination (0.9%) vs 26 who were unvaccinated (2.0%) (RR 0.41 95% CI 0.20-0.85). CONCLUSION: Adjuvant HPV vaccination in the setting of surgical excision for CIN 2 or greater is associated with a reduced risk of recurrent cervical dysplasia overall and a reduction in the risk of recurrent lesions caused by the most oncogenic strains (HPV 16,18). Human papillomavirus vaccination should therefore be considered for adjuvant treatment in patients undergoing surgical excision for CIN 2 or greater. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42019123786.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".