title: Pros, cons, and ethics of HPV vaccine in teens-Why such controversy?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection remains one of the most commonly sexually transmitted infections in both females and males. HPV viruses are associated with several manifestations including genital warts, but more importantly for urology practitioners, cervical and penile carcinomas and recurrent genital condylomata in both sexes. The incidence of HPV-related carcinomas has increased in cervical, oropharyngeal, vulvar, penile, and anal cancers. Effective vaccines have been available for almost a decade, but widespread adoption of vaccine administration has been problematic for multiple reasons. Many countries (over 100) have adopted vaccine programs for females and an increasing number of countries are extending the indications to include males between the ages of 9-26. There still seems to be controversy surrounding these universal vaccination programs as well as some ethical and practical concerns regarding the administration of a vaccine for diseases that are associated with sexual contact in both sexes, especially during the early adolescent years.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The objective was to provide a review of the available literature so pediatric and adult urologists may be more aware of the issues related to HPV vaccination in order to more effectively counsel patients and parents regarding the risks, benefits, and public health issues regarding HPV vaccination. This topic is especially relevant to pediatric urologists who see patients in the target age group for the HPV vaccine. There has been an explosion of literature regarding HPV vaccination programs and the relative difficulty in adopting the vaccine series with a completion rate of under 50% of patients in the recommended age ranges for vaccination.
  
  
  METHODS
  Articles were obtained from an extensive Medline literature search (1998-present) to evaluate the current HPV vaccination regimens for teenagers with special emphasis on the urologically focused disease burden.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The adoption of universal HPV vaccination has been difficult, but appears to be increasing over time as public education improves and governmentally- mandated vaccine programs increase. Despite the ethical concerns raised, the benefits of vaccination with regard to cancer prevention outweigh the risks and potential side effects related to the quadrivalent vaccine administration. Clearly, more follow-up over time is required to document these improvements in public health. Urologists need to remain aware of the prevention strategies for HPV infection and should help with counseling parents and patients in the appropriate age groups for HPV vaccination. Urology providers need to help engage and educate the parents and teenage patients to help promote broader adoption of the HPV vaccine regimen.
authors.affiliation: Division of Urology, Albany Medical Center and Urological Institute of Northeastern New York, Albany, NY, USA.
authors.forename: Mark Donald
authors.initials: MD
authors.lastname: White
keywords: Papillomavirus vaccines; cervical and penile; condylomata acuminata
references.citation: J Clin Invest. 2011 Dec;121(12):4593-9
references.pmid: 22133884
references.citation: Pediatrics. 2013 Jun;131(6):1114-24
references.pmid: 23650297
references.citation: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1996 Jan 5;44(51-52):940-3
references.pmid: 8531913
references.citation: BMC Med Ethics. 2014 Apr 07;15:29
references.pmid: 24708813
references.citation: J Adolesc Health. 2011 Jun;48(6):540-52
references.pmid: 21575812
references.citation: Acad Pediatr. 2013 Sep-Oct;13(5):466-74
references.pmid: 24011749
references.citation: Pediatrics. 2013 Apr;131(4):645-51
references.pmid: 23509163
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2003 Feb 6;348(6):518-27
references.pmid: 12571259
references.citation: J Adolesc Health. 2010 Feb;46(2):113-23
references.pmid: 20113917
references.citation: Prev Med. 2011 Oct;53 Suppl 1:S36-41
references.pmid: 21962470
references.citation: Int J Cancer. 2012 Apr 15;130(8):1806-12
references.pmid: 21607949
references.citation: Clin Infect Dis. 2014 Jan;58(2):238-41
references.pmid: 24162745
references.citation: J Clin Pathol. 2009 Oct;62(10):870-8
references.pmid: 19706632
references.citation: Viral Immunol. 2012 Jun;25(3):174-86
references.pmid: 22691099
references.citation: J Infect Dis. 2013 Aug 1;208(3):385-93
references.pmid: 23785124
references.citation: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014 Jul 25;63(29):620-4
references.pmid: 25055185
references.citation: Cancer Causes Control. 2009 May;20(4):449-57
references.pmid: 19082746
references.citation: Drugs. 2012 Mar 26;72(5):715-43
references.pmid: 22413761
references.citation: JAMA Pediatr. 2014 Jan;168(1):76-82
references.pmid: 24276343
references.citation: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2009 Sep 18;58(36):997-1001
references.pmid: 19763075
references.citation: J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2011 Jul;15(3):231-4
references.pmid: 21543996
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2007 May 10;356(19):1905-8
references.pmid: 17494922
references.citation: J Adolesc Health. 2013 Dec;53(6):679-82
references.pmid: 24263069
references.citation: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011 Dec 23;60(50):1705-8
references.pmid: 22189893