State of the Science: Screening, Surveillance, and Epidemiology of HPV-Related Malignancies

Oropharyngeal, cervical, vulvar, and anal cancers share a common risk factor of HPV infection. HPV vaccination is currently recommended at age 11 or 12 to prevent new HPV infections for all genders with catch-up vaccination recommened up to age 26. Despite the known effectiveness of HPV vaccination to prevent HPV-related cancer, there is continued low uptake in the United States; only 40% of eligible persons were vaccinated in 2018, though rates are 70% among teenagers. Current American Cancer Society cancer screening guidelines recommend cervical cancer screening, but do not have specific recommendations for screening for other HPV-related cancers. Oropharyngeal cancer precursors have yet to be identified, and there are currently no routine screening tests for oropharyngeal cancer recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and American Cancer Society recommend cervical cancer screening for women at average risk up to age 65, and screening guidelines do not currently differ by HPV vaccination status. Primary HPV DNA testing was first approved for cervical cancer screening in 2016 and was shown to be superior for cervical cancer prevention. Vulvar and anal cancer precursors have been identified, but optimal screening remains unclear. Examination of the anal canal and perianus is best performed by trained clinicians using high-resolution anoscopy, and effectiveness of using high-resolution anoscopy to detect and treat anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions to prevent cancer is actively being researched. Current multistep approaches to control HPV-related malignancies include HPV vaccination coupled with cervical cancer screening or surveillance for oropharyngeal, vulvar, and anal cancers.

Why Does Cancer Screening Persist Despite the Potential to Harm?

Population screening for early-stage cancer or cancer precursors began in the mid-twentieth century, with the goal of reducing suffering from cancer illness and lengthening average life by preventing cancer deaths. Since the establishment of cancer screening, concerns have emerged that it may be doing considerable harm; despite this, screening practices have remained relatively intractable. This intractability in the face of harm is the central problematic of my analysis. I reinterpret a large study of breast, cervical and prostate cancer screening completed recently by our Australian research group, working across empirical bioethics, public health and social science. I suggest three reasons why cancer screening might persist as it does, and thus reach conclusions about what might be required to make cancer screening systems more responsive to the potential for harm.