September is here, bringing that back-to-school feeling. This year, along with a new pencil case and protractor, girls aged 11 and 12 will be getting an added extra – a vaccine that will protect them against HPV, the virus that causes cervical cancer.

Warts can be a particularly annoying condition to afflict any person. That is because it leads to a good deal of embarrassment and discomfort, disrupting normal life to varying extents. Like the old saying goes,…

Clear some of the most common doubts about cervical cancer, HIV and human papilloma as preventing them.What Is the cause of cervical cancer?Cervical cancer is caused almost 100 percent of the cases by the human papillomavirus (HPV), particularly strains of the virus at high risk.

The cost-effectiveness of vaccination in the United States against human papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually-transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer, will be optimized by achieving universal vaccine coverage in young adolescent girls, by targeting initial "catch-up" efforts to vaccinate women younger than 21 years of age, and by revising current screening policies, according to an analysis by Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) researchers in the August 21, 2008 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine. In the U.S. in 2007, cervical cancer developed in more than 11,000 women and killed 3,600 women. Cervical cancer is caused by infection with high-risk "oncogenic" types of HPV, also associated with other cancers. Worldwide, HPV types 16 (HPV-16) and 18 (HPV-18) cause approximately 70% of cervical cancer cases. Vaccines against HPV-16 and HPV-18 appear to be highly efficacious in preventing HPV-16 and HPV-18 infections and cervical disease in females who have not previously been infected with these types. The quadrivalent vaccine currently licensed in the U.S. also prevents low-risk HPV types 6 and 11 (HPV-6 and HPV-11) infections, which are responsible for most genital warts and juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (JORRP), a rare but severe respiratory condition usually diagnosed in infancy that may be related to a mother's infection with genital warts.

GPs are increasingly prescribing the HPV vaccine to women who request it, amid confusing signals from the Department of Health.

Despite great expectations and promising results of clinical trials, we still lack sufficient evidence of an effective vaccine against cervical cancer. Several strains of human papillomavirus (HPV) can cause cervical cancer, and two vaccines directed against the currently most important oncogenic strains (i.e., the HPV-16 and HPV-18 serotypes) have been developed. That is the good news. The bad news is that the overall effect of the vaccines on cervical cancer remains unknown. As Kim and Goldie1 point out in this issue of the Journal, the real impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer will not be observable for decades.

Two vaccines against cervical cancer are being widely used without sufficient evidence about whether they are worth their high cost or even whether they will effectively stop women from getting the disease, two articles in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine conclude. Both vaccines target the human papillomavirus, a common sexually transmitted virus that usually causes no symptoms and is cleared by the immune system, but which can in very rare cases become chronic and cause cervical cancer. The two vaccines, Gardasil by Merck Sharp & Dohme and Cervarix by GlaxoSmithKline, target two strains of the virus that together cause an estimated 70 percent of cervical cancers. Gardasil also prevents infection with two other strains that cause some proportion of genital warts. Both vaccines have become quick best sellers since they were licensed two years ago in the United States and Europe, given to tens of millions of girls and women. “Despite great expectations and promising results of clinical trials, we still lack sufficient evidence of an effective vaccine against cervical cancer,” Dr. Charlotte J. Haug, editor of The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, wrote in an editorial in Thursday’s issue of The New England Journal. “With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious.”