To steer back on course here......
If HPV isn't the only cause of cervical cancer, is this a good idea? I think that was also my DH's comment. From my data here (latest gyn onc textbook) 91% of cervical cancers are HPV related. So, will we be missing the other rare cases if we "eradicate" the HPV versions? Of course, how can you pass up getting rid of 90%?
I think it is important to mention that not everyone that has HPV infection gets cervical cancer. Only some women are "lucky" enough to do that. There are many factors involved in making an HPV positive person become a cancer patient -- and those are not yet understood. However, if HPV infection is decreased significantly, the secondary factors won't matter.
I'll definitely be seeking the vaccine for my own daughter -- but I'm a little leery of making every new medical advance mandatory.
If HPV isn't the only cause of cervical cancer, is this a good idea? I think that was also my DH's comment. From my data here (latest gyn onc textbook) 91% of cervical cancers are HPV related. So, will we be missing the other rare cases if we "eradicate" the HPV versions? Of course, how can you pass up getting rid of 90%?
I think it is important to mention that not everyone that has HPV infection gets cervical cancer. Only some women are "lucky" enough to do that. There are many factors involved in making an HPV positive person become a cancer patient -- and those are not yet understood. However, if HPV infection is decreased significantly, the secondary factors won't matter.
I'll definitely be seeking the vaccine for my own daughter -- but I'm a little leery of making every new medical advance mandatory.
Comment