Responses

PDF

Long-term incidence trends of HPV-related cancers, and cases preventable by HPV vaccination: a registry-based study in Norway
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Comment on: "Long-term incidence trends on HPV-related cancers, and cases preventable by HPV vaccination: a registry-based study in Norway "
    • Malene Skorstengaard, MD, PhD-student University of Copenhagen, Denmark
    • Other Contributors:
      • Lise Thamsborg, MD, PhD-student
      • Elsebeth Lynge, Professor

    Dear Editor,

    We have with great interest read the article by Hansen et al. (1). We have though two comments for reflection. First, the authors state that the stable incidence of cervical cancer indicates “apparent exhaustion of the cancer-reducing potential of current cervical screening”. Given that the coverage by examination can be increased with e.g. self-sampling (2), that the follow-up of abnormal findings is still suboptimal (3), and that Norway among other countries plans implementation of HPV-based screening (4) which provides better protection than cytology-based screening (5), we find the authors’ statement to be a bit too pessimistic especially for the many birth cohorts of women who still have to rely on screening for their primary protection against cervical cancer.

    Second, the authors divide the HPV-vaccine preventable cancers into cervical squamous cell carcinomas and other cancers, and they argue - based on increasing trends - that the HPV vaccine can prevent a “substantial” number of these other cancers in both women and men. It should, however, be taken into account that the incidence of these cancers is low despite increasing trends. Out of 32,000 new cancer cases in Norway in 2016 (6), 271, 0.8%, fell into the other HPV-vaccine preventable category. The additional potential for prevention of cervical cancer is actually greater. With 3205 treatments per year for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (3), the HPV-vaccine could prevent an addi...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.