Philipp Kapp, Christine Schmucker, Waldemar Siemens, Timo Brugger, Lea Gorenflo, Marianne Röbl-Mathieu, Kathrin Grummich, Eberhard Thörel, Mona Askar, Maria Brotons, Peter Henrik Andersen, Deborah Konopnicki, Judi Lynch, Simona Ruta, Liisa Saare, Beatrice Swennen, Ruth Tachezy, Anja Takla, Veronika Učakar, Simopekka Vänskä, Dace Zavadska, Karam Adel Ali, Kate Olsson, Thomas Harder, Joerg J Meerpohl
{"title":"人类乳头瘤病毒(HPV)疫苗接种妇女锥形。","authors":"Philipp Kapp, Christine Schmucker, Waldemar Siemens, Timo Brugger, Lea Gorenflo, Marianne Röbl-Mathieu, Kathrin Grummich, Eberhard Thörel, Mona Askar, Maria Brotons, Peter Henrik Andersen, Deborah Konopnicki, Judi Lynch, Simona Ruta, Liisa Saare, Beatrice Swennen, Ruth Tachezy, Anja Takla, Veronika Učakar, Simopekka Vänskä, Dace Zavadska, Karam Adel Ali, Kate Olsson, Thomas Harder, Joerg J Meerpohl","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD016121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer affecting women worldwide, caused by persistent infection with oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) types. While HPV infections usually resolve spontaneously, persistent infections with high-risk HPV types can progress to premalignant glandular or - mostly - squamous intraepithelial lesions, usually classified in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Women with CIN 2 and CIN 3 (i.e. high-grade CIN) typically undergo cervical conisation to remove precancerous cervical lesions. While conisation is effective, there is a risk of recurrence and progression to invasive cervical cancer. Additionally, women who have undergone conisation are at higher risk of HPV-associated anogenital precancerous lesions and cancers in other locations. HPV vaccination is an important measure to prevent HPV-related cancer. It is unclear to what extent HPV vaccination offers protection to women with conisation. Of note, the term 'with conisation' is interchangeably used for all time points of HPV vaccination relative to the conisation procedure for the purpose of this review.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate the benefits and harms of HPV vaccination (given shortly before, at, or after conisation) in comparison to no HPV vaccination in women with conisation.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Clarivate Web of Science (May 2023). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify ongoing studies.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSI) if they compared an HPV vaccine (nonavalent, quadrivalent, or bivalent) with no HPV vaccine, placebo, or other vaccines not directed against HPV in women of any age with conisation for treating precancerous lesions following HPV infection.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Critical outcomes: CIN 2+ (irrespective of HPV type and related to HPV 16/18), CIN 3+ (irrespective of HPV type and related to HPV 16/18), incident invasive cervical cancer (irrespective of HPV type and related to HPV 16/18), persistent HPV infection (irrespective of HPV type and related to HPV 16/18) and incident HPV infection (irrespective of HPV type and related to HPV 16/18).</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We evaluated RCTs using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and NRSI using the 'Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions' tool (ROBINS-I).</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>Two review authors independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used random-effects meta-analyses for our primary analyses. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>The search identified 13 studies (2 RCTs, 11 NRSI), with 21,453 women with conisation. Studies were conducted in Europe (10), China (1), South Korea (1), and Iran (1), and published between 2013 and 2023. The length of follow-up after conisation was up to 36 months in RCTs and up to greater than 60 months in NRSI. Eight studies included women older than 25 years. The remaining studies included women across different age groups (range 17 to greater than 50 years). In 10 studies, the treatment for cervical lesions included loop electrosurgical excision procedures or large loop excision of the transformation zone as the conisation procedure. The spectrum of precancerous lesions (in terms of baseline characteristics) varied widely between women. Seven studies used the quadrivalent HPV vaccine, one used the nonavalent HPV vaccine, four used various HPV vaccine types, and one did not specify the HPV vaccine type. All studies compared the HPV vaccine with no intervention.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>Critical outcomes HPV vaccination compared to no HPV vaccination in women with conisation may reduce the risk of CIN 2+ (evidence from RCTs: risk ratio (RR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.63; 2 RCTs, 420 women; evidence from NRSI: hazard ratio (HR) 0.49, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.89; 5 NRSI, 19,059 women; odds ratio (OR) 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.97; 3 NRSI, 928 women; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.46; 3 NRSI, 1027 women; low-certainty evidence). There were similar results for CIN 2+ (related to HPV 16/18) (evidence from NRSI: RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68; 7 NRSI, 2970 women; low-certainty evidence). Effects on CIN 3+ varied between studies. One study suggested similar effects to CIN 2+ favouring HPV vaccination (evidence from NRSI: OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.60; 1 NRSI, 285 women; low-certainty evidence), while the remaining evidence was very uncertain (evidence from NRSI: RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.90; 2 NRSI, 17,472 women; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence on CIN 2+ (related to HPV 16/18) based on RCT evidence was very uncertain. The evidence on CIN 3+ (related to HPV 16/18), incident invasive cervical cancer (irrespective of HPV type), and persistent HPV infections (irrespective of HPV type and related to HPV 16/18) was very uncertain. Adverse events One RCT reported minor local reactions (redness and rash: 127/138 (92%) women; headache: 11/138 (8%) women) and severe allergies (2/158 (1%) women).</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>HPV vaccination given around the time of conisation in comparison to no HPV vaccination in women with conisation may reduce the risk of CIN 2+ and CIN 2+ (related to HPV 16/18; evidence based on NRSI). Effects on CIN 3+ (irrespective of HPV type) varied, with one NRSI suggesting similar effects to CIN 2+, while the remaining evidence was very uncertain. The evidence on other outcomes was predominantly very uncertain or inconclusive. Overall, the existing evidence for HPV vaccination in women with conisation is largely based on NRSI with serious or critical risk of bias and low- to very low-certainty evidence. Evidence from RCTs is limited (i.e. only two RCTs are available). Additional RCTs with a placebo intervention in the control group to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HPV vaccination (particularly with the nonavalent vaccine) as an adjuvant to conisation would provide more robust evidence. Future RCTs should also aim to assess how effects of vaccination around the time of conisation vary according to whether a previous HPV vaccine for primary prevention was received, timing of HPV vaccination related to conisation, and different age groups.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>EU4Health Programme.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO (CRD42023428998).</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"9 ","pages":"CD016121"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12416133/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in women with conisation.\",\"authors\":\"Philipp Kapp, Christine Schmucker, Waldemar Siemens, Timo Brugger, Lea Gorenflo, Marianne Röbl-Mathieu, Kathrin Grummich, Eberhard Thörel, Mona Askar, Maria Brotons, Peter Henrik Andersen, Deborah Konopnicki, Judi Lynch, Simona Ruta, Liisa Saare, Beatrice Swennen, Ruth Tachezy, Anja Takla, Veronika Učakar, Simopekka Vänskä, Dace Zavadska, Karam Adel Ali, Kate Olsson, Thomas Harder, Joerg J Meerpohl\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD016121\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer affecting women worldwide, caused by persistent infection with oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) types. While HPV infections usually resolve spontaneously, persistent infections with high-risk HPV types can progress to premalignant glandular or - mostly - squamous intraepithelial lesions, usually classified in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Women with CIN 2 and CIN 3 (i.e. high-grade CIN) typically undergo cervical conisation to remove precancerous cervical lesions. While conisation is effective, there is a risk of recurrence and progression to invasive cervical cancer. Additionally, women who have undergone conisation are at higher risk of HPV-associated anogenital precancerous lesions and cancers in other locations. HPV vaccination is an important measure to prevent HPV-related cancer. It is unclear to what extent HPV vaccination offers protection to women with conisation. Of note, the term 'with conisation' is interchangeably used for all time points of HPV vaccination relative to the conisation procedure for the purpose of this review.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate the benefits and harms of HPV vaccination (given shortly before, at, or after conisation) in comparison to no HPV vaccination in women with conisation.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Clarivate Web of Science (May 2023). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify ongoing studies.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSI) if they compared an HPV vaccine (nonavalent, quadrivalent, or bivalent) with no HPV vaccine, placebo, or other vaccines not directed against HPV in women of any age with conisation for treating precancerous lesions following HPV infection.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Critical outcomes: CIN 2+ (irrespective of HPV type and related to HPV 16/18), CIN 3+ (irrespective of HPV type and related to HPV 16/18), incident invasive cervical cancer (irrespective of HPV type and related to HPV 16/18), persistent HPV infection (irrespective of HPV type and related to HPV 16/18) and incident HPV infection (irrespective of HPV type and related to HPV 16/18).</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We evaluated RCTs using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and NRSI using the 'Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions' tool (ROBINS-I).</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>Two review authors independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used random-effects meta-analyses for our primary analyses. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>The search identified 13 studies (2 RCTs, 11 NRSI), with 21,453 women with conisation. Studies were conducted in Europe (10), China (1), South Korea (1), and Iran (1), and published between 2013 and 2023. The length of follow-up after conisation was up to 36 months in RCTs and up to greater than 60 months in NRSI. Eight studies included women older than 25 years. The remaining studies included women across different age groups (range 17 to greater than 50 years). In 10 studies, the treatment for cervical lesions included loop electrosurgical excision procedures or large loop excision of the transformation zone as the conisation procedure. The spectrum of precancerous lesions (in terms of baseline characteristics) varied widely between women. Seven studies used the quadrivalent HPV vaccine, one used the nonavalent HPV vaccine, four used various HPV vaccine types, and one did not specify the HPV vaccine type. All studies compared the HPV vaccine with no intervention.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>Critical outcomes HPV vaccination compared to no HPV vaccination in women with conisation may reduce the risk of CIN 2+ (evidence from RCTs: risk ratio (RR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.63; 2 RCTs, 420 women; evidence from NRSI: hazard ratio (HR) 0.49, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.89; 5 NRSI, 19,059 women; odds ratio (OR) 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.97; 3 NRSI, 928 women; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.46; 3 NRSI, 1027 women; low-certainty evidence). There were similar results for CIN 2+ (related to HPV 16/18) (evidence from NRSI: RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68; 7 NRSI, 2970 women; low-certainty evidence). Effects on CIN 3+ varied between studies. One study suggested similar effects to CIN 2+ favouring HPV vaccination (evidence from NRSI: OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.60; 1 NRSI, 285 women; low-certainty evidence), while the remaining evidence was very uncertain (evidence from NRSI: RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.90; 2 NRSI, 17,472 women; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence on CIN 2+ (related to HPV 16/18) based on RCT evidence was very uncertain. The evidence on CIN 3+ (related to HPV 16/18), incident invasive cervical cancer (irrespective of HPV type), and persistent HPV infections (irrespective of HPV type and related to HPV 16/18) was very uncertain. Adverse events One RCT reported minor local reactions (redness and rash: 127/138 (92%) women; headache: 11/138 (8%) women) and severe allergies (2/158 (1%) women).</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>HPV vaccination given around the time of conisation in comparison to no HPV vaccination in women with conisation may reduce the risk of CIN 2+ and CIN 2+ (related to HPV 16/18; evidence based on NRSI). Effects on CIN 3+ (irrespective of HPV type) varied, with one NRSI suggesting similar effects to CIN 2+, while the remaining evidence was very uncertain. The evidence on other outcomes was predominantly very uncertain or inconclusive. Overall, the existing evidence for HPV vaccination in women with conisation is largely based on NRSI with serious or critical risk of bias and low- to very low-certainty evidence. Evidence from RCTs is limited (i.e. only two RCTs are available). Additional RCTs with a placebo intervention in the control group to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HPV vaccination (particularly with the nonavalent vaccine) as an adjuvant to conisation would provide more robust evidence. Future RCTs should also aim to assess how effects of vaccination around the time of conisation vary according to whether a previous HPV vaccine for primary prevention was received, timing of HPV vaccination related to conisation, and different age groups.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>EU4Health Programme.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO (CRD42023428998).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"CD016121\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12416133/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD016121\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD016121","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
理由:宫颈癌是世界上影响妇女的第四大常见癌症,由致瘤性人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)类型的持续感染引起。虽然HPV感染通常自发消退,但高危型HPV持续感染可进展为癌前腺状或鳞状上皮内病变,通常分类为宫颈上皮内瘤变(CIN)。患有CIN 2和CIN 3(即高级别CIN)的妇女通常接受宫颈锥切术以切除癌前病变。虽然根治术是有效的,但有复发和发展为浸润性宫颈癌的风险。此外,接受过锥形手术的妇女患hpv相关的肛门生殖器癌前病变和其他部位癌症的风险更高。HPV疫苗接种是预防HPV相关癌症的重要措施。目前尚不清楚HPV疫苗在多大程度上对患有绝症的妇女提供保护。值得注意的是,为了本综述的目的,“与确认”一词可互换用于HPV疫苗接种的所有时间点,相对于确认程序。目的:研究宫颈癌妇女接种HPV疫苗(在宫颈癌前、中、后不久接种)与未接种HPV疫苗的益处和危害。检索方法:检索了CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase和Clarivate Web of Science(2023年5月)。我们还检索了ClinicalTrials.gov网站以确定正在进行的研究。入选标准:我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCTs)和非随机干预研究(NRSI),如果它们将HPV疫苗(非价、四价或二价)与无HPV疫苗、安慰剂或其他非针对HPV的疫苗在任何年龄的女性中用于治疗HPV感染后癌前病变。关键结果:CIN 2+(与HPV类型无关,与HPV 16/18相关),CIN 3+(与HPV类型无关,与HPV 16/18相关),侵袭性宫颈癌(与HPV类型无关,与HPV 16/18相关),持续性HPV感染(与HPV类型无关,与HPV 16/18相关)和HPV感染(与HPV类型无关,与HPV 16/18相关)。偏倚风险:我们使用Cochrane RoB 2工具评估rct,使用“非随机干预研究的偏倚风险”工具(ROBINS-I)评估NRSI。综合方法:两位综述作者独立筛选、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。我们使用随机效应荟萃分析进行初步分析。我们使用GRADE方法对证据的确定性进行评级。纳入的研究:检索确定了13项研究(2项随机对照试验,11项NRSI),涉及21453名患有锥体化的女性。研究分别在欧洲(10)、中国(1)、韩国(1)和伊朗(1)进行,发表时间为2013年至2023年。随访时间在rct中长达36个月,在NRSI中超过60个月。8项研究包括25岁以上的女性。其余的研究包括不同年龄组的女性(17岁到50岁以上)。在10项研究中,宫颈病变的治疗包括环电切术或大环切除转化区作为锥形手术。癌前病变的频谱(就基线特征而言)在女性之间差异很大。七项研究使用了四价HPV疫苗,一项研究使用了非价HPV疫苗,四项研究使用了各种HPV疫苗类型,一项研究没有指定HPV疫苗类型。所有的研究都比较了未干预的HPV疫苗。关键结果:与未接种HPV疫苗的女性相比,接种HPV疫苗可降低CIN 2+的风险(来自rct的证据:风险比(RR) 0.40, 95%可信区间(CI) 0.26至0.63;2项随机对照试验,420名女性;来自NRSI的证据:风险比(HR) 0.49, 95% CI 0.27 ~ 0.89;5 NRSI, 19,059名女性;优势比(OR) 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 ~ 0.97;3 NRSI, 928名女性;RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.13 ~ 0.46;3 NRSI, 1027名女性;确定性的证据)。CIN 2+(与HPV 16/18相关)也有类似的结果(来自NRSI的证据:RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21至0.68;7 NRSI, 2970名女性;低确定性证据)。不同研究对CIN 3+的影响不同。一项研究表明,与CIN 2+相似的效果有利于HPV疫苗接种(来自NRSI的证据:OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10至0.60;1例NRSI, 285名女性;低确定性证据),而其余证据非常不确定(来自NRSI的证据:RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.15至1.90;2例NRSI, 17,472名女性;非常低确定性证据)。基于RCT证据的CIN 2+(与HPV 16/18相关)的证据非常不确定。CIN 3+(与HPV 16/18相关)、侵袭性宫颈癌(与HPV类型无关)和持续性HPV感染(与HPV 16/18相关)的证据非常不确定。 一项随机对照试验报告了轻微的局部反应(红肿和皮疹:127/138(92%)名女性;头痛:11/138(8%)女性)和严重过敏(2/158(1%)女性)。作者的结论是:与未接种HPV疫苗相比,在宫颈癌前后接种HPV疫苗可以降低CIN 2+和CIN 2+的风险(与HPV 16/18相关;基于NRSI的证据)。对CIN 3+的影响(与HPV类型无关)各不相同,一个NRSI显示与CIN 2+的效果相似,而其余的证据非常不确定。其他结果的证据主要是非常不确定或不确定的。总的来说,现有的证据表明,患有锥状瘤病毒的妇女接种HPV疫苗主要是基于NRSI,具有严重或严重的偏倚风险,证据的确定性低至非常低。来自随机对照试验的证据有限(即只有两个随机对照试验可用)。在对照组中进行安慰剂干预的其他随机对照试验,以评估HPV疫苗接种(特别是使用无价疫苗)作为治疗辅助的有效性和安全性,将提供更有力的证据。未来的随机对照试验还应旨在评估在确诊前后接种疫苗的效果如何根据先前是否接种过用于一级预防的HPV疫苗、与确诊相关的HPV疫苗接种时间以及不同年龄组而变化。资助:欧盟卫生方案。注册:普洛斯彼罗(CRD42023428998)。
Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in women with conisation.
Rationale: Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer affecting women worldwide, caused by persistent infection with oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) types. While HPV infections usually resolve spontaneously, persistent infections with high-risk HPV types can progress to premalignant glandular or - mostly - squamous intraepithelial lesions, usually classified in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Women with CIN 2 and CIN 3 (i.e. high-grade CIN) typically undergo cervical conisation to remove precancerous cervical lesions. While conisation is effective, there is a risk of recurrence and progression to invasive cervical cancer. Additionally, women who have undergone conisation are at higher risk of HPV-associated anogenital precancerous lesions and cancers in other locations. HPV vaccination is an important measure to prevent HPV-related cancer. It is unclear to what extent HPV vaccination offers protection to women with conisation. Of note, the term 'with conisation' is interchangeably used for all time points of HPV vaccination relative to the conisation procedure for the purpose of this review.
Objectives: To investigate the benefits and harms of HPV vaccination (given shortly before, at, or after conisation) in comparison to no HPV vaccination in women with conisation.
Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Clarivate Web of Science (May 2023). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify ongoing studies.
Eligibility criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSI) if they compared an HPV vaccine (nonavalent, quadrivalent, or bivalent) with no HPV vaccine, placebo, or other vaccines not directed against HPV in women of any age with conisation for treating precancerous lesions following HPV infection.
Outcomes: Critical outcomes: CIN 2+ (irrespective of HPV type and related to HPV 16/18), CIN 3+ (irrespective of HPV type and related to HPV 16/18), incident invasive cervical cancer (irrespective of HPV type and related to HPV 16/18), persistent HPV infection (irrespective of HPV type and related to HPV 16/18) and incident HPV infection (irrespective of HPV type and related to HPV 16/18).
Risk of bias: We evaluated RCTs using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and NRSI using the 'Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions' tool (ROBINS-I).
Synthesis methods: Two review authors independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used random-effects meta-analyses for our primary analyses. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
Included studies: The search identified 13 studies (2 RCTs, 11 NRSI), with 21,453 women with conisation. Studies were conducted in Europe (10), China (1), South Korea (1), and Iran (1), and published between 2013 and 2023. The length of follow-up after conisation was up to 36 months in RCTs and up to greater than 60 months in NRSI. Eight studies included women older than 25 years. The remaining studies included women across different age groups (range 17 to greater than 50 years). In 10 studies, the treatment for cervical lesions included loop electrosurgical excision procedures or large loop excision of the transformation zone as the conisation procedure. The spectrum of precancerous lesions (in terms of baseline characteristics) varied widely between women. Seven studies used the quadrivalent HPV vaccine, one used the nonavalent HPV vaccine, four used various HPV vaccine types, and one did not specify the HPV vaccine type. All studies compared the HPV vaccine with no intervention.
Synthesis of results: Critical outcomes HPV vaccination compared to no HPV vaccination in women with conisation may reduce the risk of CIN 2+ (evidence from RCTs: risk ratio (RR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.63; 2 RCTs, 420 women; evidence from NRSI: hazard ratio (HR) 0.49, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.89; 5 NRSI, 19,059 women; odds ratio (OR) 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.97; 3 NRSI, 928 women; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.46; 3 NRSI, 1027 women; low-certainty evidence). There were similar results for CIN 2+ (related to HPV 16/18) (evidence from NRSI: RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68; 7 NRSI, 2970 women; low-certainty evidence). Effects on CIN 3+ varied between studies. One study suggested similar effects to CIN 2+ favouring HPV vaccination (evidence from NRSI: OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.60; 1 NRSI, 285 women; low-certainty evidence), while the remaining evidence was very uncertain (evidence from NRSI: RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.90; 2 NRSI, 17,472 women; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence on CIN 2+ (related to HPV 16/18) based on RCT evidence was very uncertain. The evidence on CIN 3+ (related to HPV 16/18), incident invasive cervical cancer (irrespective of HPV type), and persistent HPV infections (irrespective of HPV type and related to HPV 16/18) was very uncertain. Adverse events One RCT reported minor local reactions (redness and rash: 127/138 (92%) women; headache: 11/138 (8%) women) and severe allergies (2/158 (1%) women).
Authors' conclusions: HPV vaccination given around the time of conisation in comparison to no HPV vaccination in women with conisation may reduce the risk of CIN 2+ and CIN 2+ (related to HPV 16/18; evidence based on NRSI). Effects on CIN 3+ (irrespective of HPV type) varied, with one NRSI suggesting similar effects to CIN 2+, while the remaining evidence was very uncertain. The evidence on other outcomes was predominantly very uncertain or inconclusive. Overall, the existing evidence for HPV vaccination in women with conisation is largely based on NRSI with serious or critical risk of bias and low- to very low-certainty evidence. Evidence from RCTs is limited (i.e. only two RCTs are available). Additional RCTs with a placebo intervention in the control group to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HPV vaccination (particularly with the nonavalent vaccine) as an adjuvant to conisation would provide more robust evidence. Future RCTs should also aim to assess how effects of vaccination around the time of conisation vary according to whether a previous HPV vaccine for primary prevention was received, timing of HPV vaccination related to conisation, and different age groups.
期刊介绍:
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.