Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40919695›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2025

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in women with conisation.

Philipp Kapp, Christine Schmucker, Waldemar Siemens, Timo Brugger, Lea Gorenflo, Marianne Röbl-Mathieu, Kathrin Grummich, Eberhard Thörel, Mona Askar, Maria Brotons and 15 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. [Vaccine prevention of HPV-associated diseases].Dermatologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors.

Philipp KappInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg / Medical Faculty - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3463-4605
Christine SchmuckerInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg / Medical Faculty - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Waldemar SiemensInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg / Medical Faculty - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Timo BruggerInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg / Medical Faculty - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Lea GorenfloInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg / Medical Faculty - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Marianne Röbl-MathieuGynecologist's Office, Munich, Germany.
Kathrin GrummichZB MED - Information Centre for Life Sciences, Cologne, Germany.
Eberhard ThörelInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg / Medical Faculty - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Mona AskarImmunization Unit, Robert Koch-Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Maria BrotonsCancer Epidemiology Research Programme, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
Peter Henrik AndersenDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Deborah KonopnickiSaint-Pierre University Hospital, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Judi LynchNational Cervical Screening Laboratory, The Coombe Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Simona RutaCarol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy & Stefan S. Nicolau Institute of Virology, Bucharest, Romania.
Liisa SaareInstitute of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Beatrice SwennenPublic Health School, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Ruth TachezyFaculty of Science BIOCEV, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Anja TaklaImmunization Unit, Robert Koch-Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Veronika UčakarNational Institute of Public Health, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Simopekka VänskäFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.
Dace ZavadskaDepartment of Paediatrics, Riga Stradiņš University, Riga, Latvia.
Karam Adel AliEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kate OlssonEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Stockholm, Sweden.
Thomas HarderImmunization Unit, Robert Koch-Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Joerg J MeerpohlInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg / Medical Faculty - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleCervical 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.

objectivesTo 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

methodsWe 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

methodsTwo 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

resultsCritical 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'

conclusionsHPV 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.

fundingEU4Health Programme. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42023428998).

Indexed as

ConizationPapillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesUterine Cervical DysplasiaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsAdultFemaleHuman Papillomavirus VirusesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicPapillomavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID40919695
PMCPMC12416133

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.