Published data to date indicate that human papillomavirus (HPV) prevention vaccines are safe and efficacious in reducing HPV persistence and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 lesions of the cervix (1-5). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration licensed the quadrivalent HPV vaccine Gardasil (HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18; Merck & Co.) in 2006 for females ages 9 to 26 years. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended broad dissemination of this vaccine as licensed (6). A second HPV prevention vaccine, bivalent directed against HPV 16 and 18, will likely receive Food and Drug Administration approval in early 2008.

One of the most important policy questions under consideration is whether males should also be included in a HPV vaccine dissemination program. Although vaccine efficacy trials are currently in progress in men internationally (7), it is important to start considering the arguments for male vaccination in preparation for trial results that should be available by 2009. Final U.S. policy decisions will be dependent on the outcome of this trial, as there is concern the HPV vaccine will have efficacy limited to females as was observed in the HSV-2 trials (8). However, data from studies of male and female adolescents ages 9 to 15 years show robust antibody responses in males as well as in females (9, 10) and efficacy in reducing external genital lesions in females as well as vulvar precancerous lesions (6, 11), an epithelium similar to that of the penile skin. Therefore, there is a strong reason to suspect that the HPV vaccine will show efficacy in males and a need to consider the public health benefit of including males in a HPV vaccine dissemination strategy in the United States.

Several important questions emerge from this argument. Is there an added public health benefit to vaccinating both sexes compared with vaccinating only females should the vaccine show efficacy in males? What is the cost-effectiveness of a broad dissemination approach compared with a targeted one? To answer these questions, this article will review (a) HPV-associated disease burden in men and women, (b) whether HPV in men influences disease risk in women, (c) the burden of HPV infection in men, (d) estimates of female HPV-related disease reduction and cost-effectiveness if males are also vaccinated, and (e) lessons learned from gender targeting of other vaccines.

Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women worldwide accounting for 15% of female cancers in developing countries and 3.6% of all newly diagnosed cancers in developed countries (12). Anogenital cancers and their precursor lesions are strongly associated with infection with the sexually transmitted HPV among men and women (13-15). HPV 16 infection is also strongly associated with anal cancer in men and women (16). In the United States, anal cancer has increased by more than 35% among men and women in the past 20 years (17, 18). Forty percent to 50% of cancers of the vulva, vagina, and penis are attributable to HPV infection as well as ∼12% of oropharyngeal cancers, 3% of cancers of the mouth, and 90% of anal cancers (13, 19, 20). Worldwide, ∼28,100 male cancers annually are attributable to HPV 16/18 infection (20). Approximately 5,000 cases of cancer annually among U.S. men are attributed to infection with HPV. In addition to cancer, HPV causes genital warts (∼1 million cases per year among each sex in the United States) and recurrent respiratory papillomatosis in both males and females.

Invasive cervical cancer is preventable through routine cytology screening, diagnosis, and treatment of preneoplastic lesions. In the United States, 50 million Papanicolaou smears are done annually, 2.8% to 5.0% or 1.4 million to 2.5 million of which will be abnormal (e.g., mild, moderate, and severe dysplasia; refs. 21, 22). The annual costs of repeat Papanicolaou screening in the United States total $150 million, and colposcopy, biopsy, and treatment add $6 billion annually (21, 22). Broad dissemination of a HPV vaccine has the potential to decrease health-care costs and patient burden. Although routine Papanicolaou screening is still necessary, the costs associated with colposcopy, biopsy, and treatment should be reduced.

The question of whether males should be vaccinated against HPV arises from the recognition that male HPV infection significantly contributes to infection and subsequent cervical disease in women (23-26). Case-control studies of women with cervical cancer and their husbands have shown that men's sexual behavior affects women's risk for cervical neoplasia even when controlling for female sexual activity (23-28). In areas with a high incidence of cervical cancer, the male partner's sexual behavior is in itself a risk factor for cervical neoplasia (27). Among men with a history of multiple sexual partners, male circumcision was associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in their current female partners (28).

Several small cross-sectional HPV partner studies among heterosexual couples have been published (29). In a study comparing HPV status in the cervix and the semen of heterosexual sex partners, 75% of women whose partners were HPV positive had HPV DNA in their cervix, whereas only 39% of the men whose partners were HPV positive carried HPV DNA in their semen (30). In another study, 76% of male partners of women with HPV were HPV DNA positive (31). Among women whose sexual partners had penile condyloma, 76% had genital HPV infections, including 36% with abnormal cervical cytology and 28% with cervical HPV DNA detected (32). HPV type concordance within sexual partners is variable, with one study reporting 57.8% concordance (33) and another reporting 22.7% concordance (34). Unfortunately, many of these studies examined HPV prevalence in men from a single anatomic site or a semen sample, which we know today to be an incomplete method for estimating male HPV prevalence (35). Recently, Burchell et al. estimated the probability of heterosexual HPV transmission to be between 5% and 100%, with a median probability of 40% (36). Altogether, these data indicate that HPV infection in males is common and that there is a relatively high rate of transmission of HPV from males to females.

Reported rates of HPV infection in men vary widely in part because of the use of different analytical methods and the populations studied. HPV infection rates as high as 70% have been reported in men (29). In more recent published reports from the United States, where HPV detection was systematically evaluated in several anatomic sites and specimens in men, 51.2% of men were positive for at least one oncogenic or nononcogenic HPV type and another 14.3% were positive for an unclassified HPV infection (37). Among asymptomatic heterosexual men the penile shaft, coronal sulcus/glans penis (including prepuce in uncircumcised men), and the scrotum are the sites that contribute to >95% of genital HPV infection detected (35). HPV type distribution in males appears to differ from females with a higher proportion of nononcogenic infections detected compared with oncogenic infections in men. In men, sexual activity is positively correlated with HPV infection (38). Men appear to have a lower HPV seroprevalence of HPV 6, 11, 16, and 18 antibodies compared with women, and titer levels appear to be lower in men than in women. The significance of lower titer levels and lower antibody prevalence in men is not clear. However, one may speculate that lower HPV antibody prevalence and titer levels in men may be associated with reacquisition of infection throughout the lifespan. The published literature supports this concept. Unlike in women, HPV prevalence in men is not associated with age (37, 39-42).

Vaccinating Males: Estimates of Female HPV-Related Disease Reduction and Cost-effectiveness

Reduction of vaccine-preventable illnesses occurs through the direct protection conferred by those vaccinated as well as indirectly in the community through herd immunity. Therefore, models estimating the cost-effectiveness of different HPV vaccination strategies need to consider HPV transmission dynamics. Elbasha et al. (43), scientists at Merck, used a dynamic model to evaluate the effect of various HPV vaccination strategies on the reduction of female disease (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 and cervical cancer) in the United States, assuming current cytology screening recommendations remain in place. Strategies that included female and male vaccination of 12-year-olds resulted in maximal cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 reduction, ∼2-fold higher reductions than those obtained with female vaccination alone. Similarly, total reduction in cervical cancer incidence was twice as high when males were also included in vaccination programs compared with female-only strategies. From a cost-effectiveness view, including males in the vaccination program was the most cost-effective strategy, at $45,056 per quality-adjusted life year. It should be noted that only cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 and cervical cancer in the United States were considered for this analysis, although it is expected that other cancers caused by HPV 16 and 18 will be reduced with vaccination (43). The cost-effectiveness estimates provided by Elbasha et al. may likely vary by world region and country as they are in part dependent on the vaccine coverage in that population (43). Others have suggested that cost-effectiveness of male vaccination is most justified when vaccine dissemination rates in females are low (44). Without school entry requirements for HPV vaccination, it is unlikely that we will achieve greater than 30% dissemination among U.S. females in the near future. Current HPV vaccine recommendations include vaccination of 11- to 12-year-old girls and catch-up vaccination for females ages 13 to 26 years. Even if vaccine uptake among the primary population (11- to 12-year-olds) is extremely high, it will take decades before consecutive cohorts' age and the sexually active female population has high coverage without catch-up vaccination.

Experience from gender-based targeting of rubella vaccines in many countries provides some insight into gender-based targeting of HPV vaccination. A review of the 75 countries that were using rubella vaccine in 1996 found that 9% of countries selectively immunized women (45). Many countries started their rubella immunization policy by targeting women and later changed the immunization policy to include men (46). In the United Kingdom, for example, the rubella immunization program was aimed at schoolgirls, health-care workers, and susceptible adult women. The weaknesses of this approach became evident in 1993 and 1996, when resurgences of rubella were attributed to susceptibility among males (47, 48). In 1998, the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine was introduced in the United Kingdom for all children ages 12 to 15 months (46). Plotkin et al. highlight the importance of vaccinating males when considering rubella eradication efforts (49).

However, there are some differences between rubella and HPV. HPV and rubella differ in terms of their basic reproductive rates and length of infectivity. Most importantly, HPV is a sexually transmitted infection, whereas rubella is spread through far less intimate contact including coughing and sneezing from an infected person. As a sexually transmitted infection, the sexual contact patterns of individuals are particularly important for HPV. As Garnett et al. point out, “it would be erroneous to think of (HPV) vaccination of a single sex as achieving half the coverage of vaccinated both sexes” (44). HPV is primarily spread across genders, whereas with rubella males and females have potentially infectious contacts within and between sexes. The two models from Garnett and colleages that have explored the effect of male in addition to female vaccination for HPV have found limited benefit from vaccinating males (50, 51). However, self-reported sexual behavior from household-based surveys used in these models have led to criticism of model assumptions and consequently limit the value of these studies in assessing the utility of vaccinating males for HPV (44).

As was found with rubella (52), control of HPV among women will be achieved through a gender-based vaccination policy only if vaccine coverage among women is extremely high. Given the likelihood for suboptimal vaccine coverage among women owing to vaccine refusal, cost, and weaknesses in our vaccine delivery system, an HPV vaccine policy including men and women may become necessary to adequately control disease.

HPV infection is common in men and is readily transmitted, influencing disease rates in both males and females. Should the HPV vaccine show efficacy in males, vaccination strategies that include both sexes may be more cost-effective in reducing HPV female disease burden than gender-targeted strategies. The efficacy of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine to reduce infection and lesions caused by HPV is being tested among young men internationally. Vaccination of males may become inevitable if and when vaccination of females fails to adequately control disease because of suboptimal vaccine uptake. From a disease transmission perspective, female-only vaccination may work well for controlling cervical cancer, but the realities on the ground may force us to consider other strategies such as vaccinating males.

1
Harper DM, Franco EL, Wheeler CM, et al. Sustained efficacy up to 4.5 years of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine against human papillomavirus types 16 and 18: follow-up from a randomised control trial.
Lancet
2006
;
367
:
1247
–55.
2
Mao C, Koutsky LA, Ault KA, et al. Efficacy of human papillomavirus-16 vaccine to prevent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial.
Obstet Gynecol
2006
;
107
:
18
–27.
3
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.
4
Garland SM, Hernandez-Avila M, Wheeler CM, et al. Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent anogenital diseases.
N Engl J Med
2007
;
356
:
1928
–43.
5
The Future II Study Group. Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent high-grade cervical lesions.
N Engl J Med
2007
;
356
:
1915
–27.
6
Markowitz LE, Dunne EF, Saraiya M, et al. Quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
MMWR
2007
;
56
:
1
–24.
8
Stanberry LR, Spruance SL, Cunningham AL, et al. Glycoprotein-D-adjuvant vaccine to prevent genital herpes.
N Engl J Med
2002
;
347
:
1652
–61.
9
Block SL, Nolan T, Sattler C, et al. Comparison of the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of a prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 virus-like particle vaccine in male and female adolescents and young adult women.
Pediatrics
2006
;
118
:
2135
–45.
10
Reisinger KS, Block SL, Lazcano-Ponce E, et al. Safety and persistent immunogenicity of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus types 6, 11, 16, 18 L1 virus-like particle vaccine in preadolescents and adolescents: a randomized controlled trial.
Pediatr Infect Dis J
2007
;
26
:
201
–9.
11
Sattler C, f. t. F. I. I. Efficacy of a prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) (types 6, 11, 16, 18) LI virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine for prevention of cervical dysplasia and external genital lesions (EGL). 45th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Washington (DC): American Society for Microbiology; 2005.
12
Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002.
CA Cancer J Clin
2005
;
55
:
74
–108.
13
Daling JR, Sherman KJ. Relationship between human papillomavirus infection and tumours of anogenital sites other than the cervix. IARC Sci Publ; 1992. p. 223–41.
14
Munoz N. Human papillomavirus and cancer: the epidemiological evidence.
J Clin Virol
2000
;
19
:
1
–5.
15
Schiffman MH, Bauer HM, Hoover RN, et al. Epidemiologic evidence showing that human papillomavirus infection causes most cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
J Natl Cancer Inst
1993
;
85
:
958
–64.
16
The current status of development of prophylactic vaccines against human papillomaviurs infection: report of a technical meeting. Geneva: IARC; 1999 Feb 16-18.
17
Johnson LG, Madeleine MM, Newcomer LM, Schwartz SM, Daling JR. Anal cancer incidence and survival: the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results experience, 1973-2000.
Cancer
2004
;
101
:
281
–8.
18
Palefsky JM. Human papillomavirus infection and anogenital neoplasia in human immunodeficiency virus-positive men and women.
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr
1998
;
23
:
15
–20.
19
Kreimer AR, Clifford GM, Boyle P, Franceschi S. Human papillomavirus types in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas worldwide: a systematic review.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2005
;
14
:
467
–75.
20
Parkin DM, Bray F. Chapter 2: the burden of HPV-related cancers.
Vaccine
2006
;
24
Suppl 3:
S11
–25.
21
Morrow CP, Cozen W. Perspective on cervical cancer: why prevent?
J Cell Biochem Suppl
1995
;
23
:
61
–70.
22
Kurman RJ, Henson DE, Herbst AL, Noller KL, Schiffman MH. Interim guidelines for management of abnormal cervical cytology. The 1992 National Cancer Institute Workshop.
JAMA
1994
;
271
:
1866
–9.
23
Agarwal SS, Sehgal A, Sardana S, Kumar A, Luthra UK. Role of male behavior in cervical carcinogenesis among women with one lifetime sexual partner.
Cancer
1993
;
72
:
1666
–9.
24
Buckley JD, Harris RW, Doll R, Vessey MP, Williams PT. Case-control study of the husbands of women with dysplasia or carcinoma of the cervix uteri.
Lancet
1981
;
2
:
1010
–5.
25
Thomas DB, Ray RM, Pardthaisong T, et al. Prostitution, condom use, and invasive squamous cell cervical cancer in Thailand.
Am J Epidemiol
1996
;
143
:
779
–86.
26
Zunzunegui MV, King MC, Coria CF, Charlet J. Male influences on cervical cancer risk.
Am J Epidemiol
1986
;
123
:
302
–7.
27
Bosch FX, Castellsague X, Munoz N, et al. Male sexual behavior and human papillomavirus DNA: key risk factors for cervical cancer in Spain.
J Natl Cancer Inst
1996
;
88
:
1060
–7.
28
Castellsague X, Bosch FX, Munoz N, et al. Male circumcision, penile human papillomavirus infection, and cervical cancer in female partners.
N Engl J Med
2002
;
346
:
1105
–12.
29
Dunne EF, Nielson CM, Stone KM, Markowitz LE, Giuliano AR. Prevalence of HPV infection among men: a systematic review of the literature.
J Infect Dis
2006
;
194
:
1044
–57.
30
Kyo S, Inoue M, Koyama M, et al. Detection of high-risk human papillomavirus in the cervix and semen of sex partners.
J Infect Dis
1994
;
170
:
682
–5.
31
Nicolau SM, Camargo CG, Stavale JN, et al. Human papillomavirus DNA detection in male sexual partners of women with genital human papillomavirus infection.
Urology
2005
;
65
:
251
–5.
32
Campion MJ, Singer A, Clarkson PK, McCance DJ. Increased risk of cervical neoplasia in consorts of men with penile condylomata acuminata.
Lancet
1985
;
1
:
943
–6.
33
Bleeker MC, Hogewoning CJ, Berkhof J, et al. Concordance of specific human papillomavirus types in sex partners is more prevalent than would be expected by chance and is associated with increased viral loads.
Clin Infect Dis
2005
;
41
:
612
–20.
34
Hippelainen MI, Yliskoski M, Syrjanen S, et al. Low concordance of genital human papillomavirus (HPV) lesions and viral types in HPV-infected women and their male sexual partners.
Sex Transm Dis
1994
;
21
:
76
–82.
35
Giuliano AR, Nielson CM, Flores R, et al. The optimal anatomic sites for sampling heterosexual men for human papillomavirus (HPV) detection: the HPV Detection in Men Study.
J Infect Dis
2007
;
196
:
1146
–52.
36
Burchell AN, Richardson H, Mahmud SM, et al. Modeling the sexual transmissibility of human papillomavirus infection using stochastic computer simulation and empirical data from a cohort study of young women in Montreal, Canada.
Am J Epidemiol
2006
;
163
:
534
–43.
37
Nielson CM, Flores R, Harris RB, et al. Human papillomavirus prevalence and type distribution in male anogenital sites and semen.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2007
;
16
:
1107
–14.
38
Nielson CM, Harris RB, Dunne EF, et al. Risk factors for anogenital human papillomavirus infection in men.
J Infect Dis
2007
;
197
:
1137
–45.
39
Baldwin SB, Wallace DR, Papenfuss MR, et al. Condom use and other factors affecting penile human papillomavirus detection in men attending a sexually transmitted disease clinic.
Sex Transm Dis
2004
;
31
:
601
–7.
40
Baldwin SB, Wallace DR, Papenfuss MR, et al. Human papillomavirus infection in men attending a sexually transmitted disease clinic.
J Infect Dis
2003
;
187
:
1064
–70.
41
Franceschi S, Castellsague X, Dal Maso L, et al. Prevalence and determinants of human papillomavirus genital infection in men.
Br J Cancer
2002
;
86
:
705
–11.
42
Lazcano-Ponce E, Herrero R, Munoz N, et al. High prevalence of human papillomavirus infection in Mexican males: comparative study of penile-urethral swabs and urine samples.
Sex Transm Dis
2001
;
28
:
277
–80.
43
Elbasha EH, Dasbach EJ, Insinga RP. Model for assessing human papillomavirus vaccination strategies.
Emerg Infect Dis
2007
;
13
:
28
–41.
44
Garnett GP, Kim JJ, French K, Goldie SJ. Chapter 21: modelling the impact of HPV vaccines on cervical cancer and screening programmes.
Vaccine
2006
;
24
Suppl 3:
S178
–86.
45
Robertson SE, Cutts FT, Samuel R, Diaz-Ortega JL. Control of rubella and congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) in developing countries. Part 2. Vaccination against rubella.
Bull World Health Organ
1997
;
75
:
69
–80.
46
Tookey P. Rubella in England, Scotland and Wales.
Euro Surveill
2004
;
9
:
21
–3.
47
Tookey PA, Peckham CS. Surveillance of congenital rubella in Great Britain, 1971-96.
BMJ
1999
;
318
:
769
–70.
48
Vyse AJ, Gay NJ, White JM, et al. Evolution of surveillance of measles, mumps, and rubella in England and Wales: providing the platform for evidence-based vaccination policy.
Epidemiol Rev
2002
;
24
:
125
–36.
49
Plotkin SA, Katz M, Cordero JF. The eradication of rubella.
JAMA
1999
;
281
:
561
–2.
50
Barnabas RV, Laukkanen P, Koskela P, et al. Epidemiology of HPV 16 and cervical cancer in Finland and the potential impact of vaccination: mathematical modelling analyses.
PLoS Med
2006
;
3
:
e138
.
51
Taira AV, Neukermans CP, Sanders GD. Evaluating human papillomavirus vaccination programs.
Emerg Infect Dis
2004
;
10
:
1915
–23.
52
Plotkin SA, Vaccines. Rubella vaccine. Philadelphia (PA): W.B. Saunders Co.; 1999. p. 430–9.