Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Oral Sex Can Add to HPV Cancer Risk

Oral sex can get most men's attention. The topic becomes considerably more relevant, however, when coupled with a new study linking the human papillomavirus (HPV) to an increased risk of a kind of oral cancer more often seen in men.
The study, which appears in this week's New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), shows that men and women who reported having six or more oral-sex partners during their lifetime had a nearly ninefold increased risk of developing cancer of the tonsils or at the base of the tongue. Of the 300 study participants, those infected with HPV were also 32 times more likely to develop this type of oral cancer than those who did not have the virus.
These findings dwarf the increased risk of developing this so-called oropharyngeal cancer associated with the two major risk factors: smoking (3 times greater) or drinking (2.5 times greater). HPV infection drives cancerous growth, as it is widely understood to do in the cervix. But unlike cervical cancer, this type of oral cancer is more prevalent in men.
HPV is ubiquitous. Of the 120 strains isolated from humans - about 40 of which are in the mouth and genital tracts - Merck's recently FDA-approved vaccine, Gardasil, protects against four: HPV-6 and HPV-11, which cause warts; and HPV-16 and HPV-18, which cause about 70% of cervical cancers.
Similarly, according to the study, HPV-16 was present in 72 of the 100 cancer patients enrolled in the study. Between 12,000 and 15,000 new cases of oropharyngeal cancer are diagnosed each year, and about 3,000 people die from it. "It is a significant health issue," says Dr. Robert Haddad, clinical director of the Head and Neck Oncology Program at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Haddad says that public awareness of the HPV virus needs to be just like that of HIV because the virus causes multiple types of cancer.
The study's findings bring to light a part of the debate over HPV vaccination and treatment that is often overlooked: the elevated risks of cancer that being HPV-positive has for men. According to Johns Hopkins' researcher Dr. Maura Gillison, who worked on the study: "When you look at the cancers associated with HPV in men - including penile cancer, anal squamous cell carcinoma, oral cancers - it's very close to the number of cases of cervical cancer that occur in the U.S. in women every year. We need to adjust the public's perception.. . that only women are at risk." In his practice, Haddad has seen an increase in the number of younger people developing this cancer, people in their 30s and 40s. He attributes it in part to a "change in sexual behavior over the last decade." He says: "The idea that oral sex is risk-free is not correct. It comes with significant risks, and developing cancer is one of them."
Gardasil has become a vaccine rock star, but vaccines to fight HPV are still in their infancy. Another study in this week's NEJM points out that while the preventative vaccine works 98% of the time to protect girls not yet infected with HPV-16 and HPV-18, the vaccine is only 17% effective against cancer precursors overall. These findings could undercut the argument ensuing in more than 15 states to make the vaccine mandatory for young girls.
Gardasil and some vaccines in clinical trial are preventative, but drug companies such as MGI Pharma are studying therapeutic vaccines to treat those already infected with the virus. "We need to come up with better vaccines - and we need to study them in men," says Haddad. Gardasil has not been tested against oral HPV, but Dr. Douglas Lowy, laboratory chief at the National Cancer Institute, says that there is every reason to think that, in principle, "the vaccine should be able to have an impact on oral cancers attributable to HPV." Lowy says that the next studies might start with a look at the rate of acquisition of oral HPV in those who are vaccinated and those who aren't.
"There's no question that the debate needs to go further than where it is now," says Haddad. "Men are carriers and that is one way of transmitting this virus."
(AP)

1 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good, balanced post. Thank you.

Here is just a bit more grist for you GARDASIL mill.

Despite the idiotic rhetoric of conservative nuts, there are a lot of good medical reasons to wait before rushing to mandate a vaccine that was approved less than a year ago based on only two years of clinical results.

For example, the most recently released clinical results are very disappointing.

To summarize this published medical journal article:

1. In the FUTURE I trial, GARDASIL demonstrated no clinical efficacy among the general subject population for overall reduction in the rates of grade 2 and grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma -- the only recognized precursors to cervical cancer.

2. In the larger FUTURE II trial, GARDASIL demonstrated no clinical efficacy among the general subject population for overall reduction in the rates of grade 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma -- the strongest (and many would argue only valid) precursors to cervical cancer.

3. Extrapolating from GARDASIL's very limited clinical "success" (in the FUTURE II study only) against grade 2 cervical dysplasias (40% of which regress spontaneously), 129 women would be have to be vaccinated (at a cost of about $60,000) to prevent a single grade 2 cervical dysplasia.

4. GARDASIL's protection against cancer associated HPV strains 16 and 18 appears to cause a disproportionate increase in of pre-cancerous dysplasias associated with other HPV strains associated with cervical cancer "raising the possibility that other oncogenic HPV types eventually filled the biologic niche left behind after the elimination of HPV types 16 and 18."

5. Even if look only at the FUTURE II results (in which for some reason GARDASIL performed better among the general female population), we are talking about just a 17% decrease in all high grade dysplasias -- many of which would spontaneously regress without treatment. So we would have vaccinate 129 women (at about $500 for the three shot regimen) to avoid a single, eminently treatable dysplasia. That's about $60,000 per dysplasia prevented.

This is all directly from the article linked above.

I myself would add that we currently have only 3 years of follow up to go on in terms of both GARDASIL's safety and efficacy among the 16 to 26 year female population, no data concerning its efficacy among 9 to 12 year old girls and only 18 months of follow up on less than 600 total preteen girls in terms of safety data about GARDASIL within its targeted population.

Also see : The Journal of the American Medical Association and The Wall Street Journal

It appears that the vaccinated cohort sees a 20%+ increase in high grade cervical dysplasias caused by cancer-associated HPV strains other than HPV 16 and 18. One possible explanation is that HPV 6 or HPV 11 infections are antagonistic to more dangerous HPV infections.