Cited by 20Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementGenital Health and Disease

Potential lives saved in 73 countries by adopting multi-cohort vaccination of 9–14-year-old girls against human papillomavirus

Open access
Jit, Mark, Brisson, Marc·2018·International Journal of Cancer

Abstract

Up to 2016, low‐ and middle‐income countries mostly introduced routine human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination for just a single age‐cohort of girls each year. However, high‐income countries have reported large reductions in HPV prevalence following “catch‐up” vaccination of multiple age‐cohorts in the year of HPV vaccine introduction. We used the mathematical model PRIME to project the incremental impact of vaccinating 10‐ to 14‐year‐old girls compared to routine HPV vaccination only in the same year that routine vaccination is expected to be introduced for 9‐year‐old girls across 73 low‐ and lower‐middle‐income countries. Adding multiple age‐cohort vaccination could increase the number of cervical cancer deaths averted by vaccine introductions in 2015–2030 by 30–40% or an additional 1.23–1.79 million over the lifetime of the vaccinated cohorts. The number of girls needed to vaccinate to prevent one death is 101 in the most pessimistic scenario, which is only slightly greater than that for routine vaccination of 9‐year‐old girls (87). These results hold even when assuming that girls who have sexually debuted do not benefit from vaccination. Results suggest that multiple age‐cohort vaccination of 9‐ to 14‐year‐old girls could accelerate HPV vaccine impact and be cost‐effective.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ijc.31321

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Mathematical modelling studies have consistently shown that girls-only HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screen-and-treat programmes are cost-effective in LMICs.

    “Finally, mathematical modelling studies have consistently shown that girls-only HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screen-and-treat programmes are cost-effective in LMICs.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22”

    From Impact of HPV vaccination and cervical screening on cervical cancer elimination: a comparative modelling analysis in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries (2020) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Discussion says routine HPV vaccination is cost-effective in almost all countries and suggests that vaccinating additional cohorts of girls could have a similar cost-effectiveness profile. The paper does not establish the cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screen-and-treat programmes in LMICs, so it supports only the vaccination part of the cited sentence. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. [1]Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015; 136: E359– 86. 25220842
  2. [2]Bruni L, Diaz M, Barrionuevo‐Rosas L, et al. Global estimates of human papillomavirus vaccination coverage by region and income level: a pooled analysis. Lancet Glob Heal 2016; 4: e453– 63. 27340003
  3. [3]Drolet M, Bénard É, Boily M‐C, et al. Population‐level impact and herd effects following human papillomavirus vaccination programmes: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2015; 15: 565– 80. 25744474 PMC5144106
  4. [4]Drolet M, Laprise J‐F, Brotherton JML, et al. The impact of human papillomavirus catch‐up vaccination in Australia: implications for introduction of multiple age cohort vaccination and postvaccination data interpretation. J Infect Dis 2017; 216: 1205– 9. 28968800 PMC5853481
  5. [5]Human papillomavirus vaccines: WHO position paper, October 2014. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 2014; 89: 465– 91. 25346960
  6. [6]World Health Organization. Meeting of the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on immunization, October 2016 – conclusions and recommendations. Wkly Epidemiol Rec 2016; 91: 561– 82. 27922031
  7. [9]Jit M, Brisson M, Portnoy A, et al. Cost‐effectiveness of female human papillomavirus vaccination in 179 countries: a PRIME modelling study. Lancet Glob Heal 2014; 2: e406– 14. 25103394
  8. [10]Schiller JT, Castellsagué X, Garland SM. A review of clinical trials of human papillomavirus prophylactic vaccines. Vaccine 2012; 30: F123– 38. 23199956 PMC4636904
  9. [12]Walker TY, Elam‐Evans LD, Singleton JA, et al. National, regional, state, and selected local area vaccination coverage among adolescents aged 13–17 years — United States, 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2017; 66: 874– 82. 28837546 PMC5687818
  10. [13]Béhanzin L, Diabaté S, Minani I, et al. Assessment of HIV‐related risky behaviour: a comparative study of face‐to‐face interviews and polling booth surveys in the general population of Cotonou, Benin. Sex Transm Infect 2013; 89: 595– 601. 23723251 PMC3800174
  11. [14]Munro HL, Pradeep BS, Jayachandran AA, et al. Prevalence and determinants of HIV and sexually transmitted infections in a general population‐based sample in Mysore district, Karnataka state, southern India. AIDS 2008; 22: S117– 25. 19098472
  12. [17]Mercer CH, Tanton C, Prah P, et al. Changes in sexual attitudes and lifestyles in Britain through the life course and over time: findings from the National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal). Lancet 2013; 382: 1781– 94. 24286784 PMC3899021
  13. [18]Brisson M, Van de Velde N, De Wals P, et al. Estimating the number needed to vaccinate to prevent diseases and death related to human papillomavirus infection. CMAJ 2007; 177: 464– 8. 17709404 PMC1950193
  14. [19]Marra F, Cloutier K, Oteng B, et al. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccine. A systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics 2009; 27: 127– 47. 19254046
  15. [20]Seto K, Marra F, Raymakers A, et al. The cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccines: a systematic review. Drugs 2012; 72: 715– 43. 22413761
  16. [22]Baussano I, Lazzarato F, Ronco G, et al. Benefits of catch‐up in vaccination against human papillomavirus in medium‐ and low‐income countries. Int J Cancer 2013; 133: 1876– 81. 23564420
  17. [23]Chanthavilay P, Reinharz D, Mayxay M, et al. The economic evaluation of human papillomavirus vaccination strategies against cervical cancer in women in Lao PDR: a mathematical modelling approach. BMC Health Serv Res 2016; 16: 418. 27549921 PMC4994168
  18. [24]Phillips A, Patel C, Pillsbury A, Brotherton J, Macartney K. Safety of human papillomavirus vaccines: an updated review. Drug Saf 2017; 1– 18. 29280070
  19. [25]Elfström KM, Lazzarato F, Franceschi S, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination of boys and extended catch‐up vaccination: effects on the resilience of programs. J Infect Dis 2016; 213: 199– 205. 26142436
  20. [26]Jit M, Vyse A, Borrow R, et al. Prevalence of human papillomavirus antibodies in young female subjects in England. Br J Cancer 2007; 97: 989– 91. 17726462 PMC2360425
  21. [27]Paavonen J, Jenkins D, Bosch FX, et al. Efficacy of a prophylactic adjuvanted bivalent L1 virus‐like‐particle vaccine against infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: an interim analysis of a phase III double‐blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007; 369: 2161– 70. 17602732

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jit, M., & Brisson, M.
Affiliations
  • Public Health England (GB)
  • Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval (CA)
Corresponding author
Jit, Mark
Venue
International Journal of Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-03
Volume
143
Issue
2
Pages
317-323
ISSN
  • 0020-7136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0215
OpenAlex
W2790904415
Cited by
20
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • World Health Organization
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Genital Health and Disease
Keywords
HPV vaccination, catch-up vaccination, cervical cancer prevention, low- and middle-income countries, cost-effectiveness, prime models
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Cohort Studies, Papillomaviridae, Papillomavirus Infections, Mass Vaccination, Papillomavirus Vaccines

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review