Impact of catch-up human papillomavirus vaccination on cervical conization rate in a real-life population in France.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of catch-up human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination on conization rates in France in a large population-based study.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective real-life cohort study on data collected prospectively by French National Health Insurance. Echantillon généralistes des bénéficiaires (EGB) is a database composed of demographic and health care utilization data for a 1/97th sample of the French population. We extracted data about all women born between 1983 and 1991, corresponding to the catch-up population (vaccination after 14 years old) at the time of implementation of HPV vaccination. The primary outcome was the occurrence of conization (all types of procedures) compared between vaccinated and non-vaccinated women.
RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 42,452 women. Vaccination coverage (at least one dose) was low (9.8%, n = 4,129), but increased with time from vaccine implementation, from 0% in the 1983 cohort to 31% in the 1991 cohort. The conization rate was 1% for the overall population. The risk of conization for women between the ages of 19 and 30 years was reduced in the vaccinated group with a Hazard Ratio (HR) of 0.59 (95% CI[0.39-0.90]; p = 0.043).
CONCLUSIONS: With a 10-year follow-up, catch-up HPV vaccination is associated with risk reduction of conization between the ages of 19 and 30.

Introduction

Cervical cancer remains a public health issue in France, as it affects young women with a peak incidence at the age of 42 years [1, 2]. The severity of cervical cancer is related to the high morbidity associated with treatment, including chemotherapy, radiation therapy and surgery. Conization is part of the treatment of cervical dysplasia and early stage cancer. In women who have not always completed their pregnancy plans, this procedure is associated with obstetrical morbidity.

Almost all cervical cancers are induced by human papillomavirus (HPV). The genotypes most frequently involved are genotypes 16 and 18, responsible for about 70% of all cervical cancers. Sexual transmission mainly occurs during the first year of sexual activity. The natural history of HPV infection consists of slow progression either to spontaneous cure or possible dysplasia and subsequent cervical cancer.

HPV vaccination directed against the genotypes responsible for cervical cancer has been available since 2006 and has been reimbursed since 2007 in France. Its effectiveness is based on extensive vaccination coverage providing individual protection and herd immunity [3, 4]. However, vaccination coverage remains low in France, as less than 30% of 16-year-old girls born between 1996 and 2000 received a complete immunization plan in 2017 [5]. This poor take-up could be explained by a different approach to vaccination compared to that adopted in other countries (lack of a school-based vaccination program), as well as mistrust of health professionals and the general public towards the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine [6-8]. However, several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of vaccination on genital warts [9-14] and especially on cervical dysplasia in Australia [15, 16], Canada [17], Sweden [18] and Denmark [19]. More recently, two large cohort studies showed a reduced risk of invasive cervical cancer among girls and women vaccinated in Sweden [20] and in Denmark [21]. However, no such studies have yet been conducted in France. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the impact of HPV vaccination in a real-life population.

Materials and methods

We conducted a retrospective real-life cohort study, i.e. on a large sample of the French population, on prospectively collected data.

Data sources and study period

Data were extracted from the French National Health Insurance database called Echantillon Généraliste des Bénéficiaires (EGB), which is a permanent sample of the population covered by national health insurance. French health care insurance is a universal health care meaning all residents are assured access to health care. Our institution has permanent access to the EGB given by its governance (ministerial steering), for the purposes of conducting studies on anonymous data. This study was reviewed and approved by an ethics committee: Curie Institutional Research Data Committee. The EGB is a random sample representing 1/97th of the population. Individuals are randomly selected on the social security number, the distribution by age group and sex is equivalent to the national distribution. The EGB includes people covered by the general social security system, i.e. all workers and unemployed persons (excluding farmers), this population representing more than 92% of the French population. This database includes anonymous sociodemographic characteristics, all reimbursed medical expenditure, consultations, drug prescriptions, laboratory tests and surgical procedures [22].

Data were extracted from EGB from 1st January 2006 (release of the first HPV vaccine—Gardasil® onto the market) to 31st December 2016.

We ensured that there were no published data on the efficacy of HPV vaccination in France. The following HPV terms were searched on Pubmed: "france"[All Fields] AND ("Papillomavirus Vaccines"[MeSH Terms] OR ("hpv"[All Fields] AND ("vaccin"[All Fields] OR "vaccination"[All Fields])) AND ("cancer"[All Fields] OR "neoplasms"[MeSH Terms] OR "neoplasms"[All Fields] OR "dysplasia"[All Fields]). We did not find any study similar to this research.

Vaccination recommendations and screening procedure

During the study period, from January 2006 to December 2016, French guidelines recommended, as catch-up vaccination, an administration of a 3-dose vaccine regimen to non-sexually active 15- to 23-year-old girls or, at the latest, during the year after first sexual intercourse [23]. Vaccination is reimbursed in this indication. Recommendations for younger girls consisted of a 3-dose vaccine regimen for 14-year-old girls and, since 2014, a 2-dose regimen for 11- to 15-year-old girls [24]. Gardasil® and Cervarix®, released onto the market in 2006 and 2008, respectively, were the vaccines available during the study. In France, screening for cervical dysplasia is based on Pap smear every 3 years between the ages of 25 and 65 years, with the first two smears performed at an interval of one year [25]. Women eligible for catch-up vaccination at the beginning of the vaccination campaign have now reached screening age.

Management of dysplasia in France

The 2002 recommendations are that conization is usually indicated for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia 2+ (CIN), with laser destruction or cryotherapy as an option in certain conditions (small lesions, exclusively exocervical, fully visible at colposcopy) [26]. In 2016 the recommendations were similar, specifying that conization should be a LEEP, with destructive treatments as an option (with the same criteria) [27]. In order to verify the application of these guidelines in real life, we ensured that high-grade dysplasia was treated by conization. Thus, we queried the national database on all hospital stays (outpatient or conventional). These data are freely available online (https://www.scansante.fr/). The diagnosis of severe cervical dysplasia (N872) was cross-referenced with acts of conization, destruction of cervical lesions, hysterectomies. The results are detailed in Table 1. The vast majority of severe dysplasia was treated by conization (87%), while destructive methods and hysterectomies were much less common (8% and 5% respectively).

Table 1

Mean number and % of annual procedure for high grade cervical dysplasia in France between 2006 and 2016.

	n	%
Conization	7,061	86.9
Destruction of cervical lesions except conization	600	7.6
Hysterectomy	438	5.4
Total	8,100	100

Study population

As girls of the HPV vaccination target population (14-year-olds) had just reached the screening age in France (14-year-old girls in 2006 were 24 years old at the end of the study period in 2016), our evaluation focused on catch-up vaccination population. The study population was therefore defined by the following criteria (Fig 1):

Fig 1

Scheme of the study population according to birth cohort.

Each birth cohort (years written in white) is represented by a line. The catch-up vaccination indication period is shown in blue and the period corresponding to age greater than 25 years is shown in yellow. The catch-up vaccination rate for at least one dose is indicated at the beginning of the line.

Catch-up vaccination target population for: women between the ages of 15 and 23 years between 2006 and 2016, i.e. born between 1983 and 2001.

Cervical cancer screening target population: women who reached the age of 25 between 2007 and 2016, i.e. born between 1983 and 1991.

Statistical analyses

We considered two groups: the vaccinated group, corresponding to women who had received at least one dose, and the non-vaccinated group. As cervical dysplasia is poorly documented in this database, our primary endpoint was therefore the conization rate, which reflects the rate of severe dysplasia. The main outcome was the comparison of conization rates between the non-vaccinated and vaccinated populations.

We calculated the conization rate in each group to assess the impact of vaccination, using Kaplan-Meier curves to study the risk of conization over equivalent periods of risk between the two groups. To avoid including patients who had already undergone conization prior to inclusion in the EGB, we determined the minimum age of conization in the overall population. As the minimum age at which conization was performed was 19 years, we excluded birth cohorts included in the EGB after the age of 19 (born before 1987). Birth cohorts from 1987 to 1991 were selected for the following analysis (Fig 2).

Fig 2

Chart flow summarizing the selection of population.

We studied the impact of potential explanatory factors for a difference between the two groups: age and number of Pap smears performed, number of general practitioner and gynaecologist visits (all reasons for consultation), and proportion of women with at least one smear at any age and after the age of 25 years old.

Chi-square tests were used to compare categorical variables, t-tests to compare continuous variables and the Logrank test was used to test the probability of conization over time between the vaccinated and non-vaccinated populations. All data analyses were performed using R software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2018, 3.5.1, https://www.R-project.org, Version 1.1.463 – © 2009–2018 RStudio, Inc).

Results

The population included in the EGB over the period 2006 to 2016, including women born between 1983 and 1991, constituted a cohort of 42,452 women. Catch-up HPV vaccination coverage was 9.8% for at least one dose of vaccine (from 0% for the 1983 birth cohort to 30.9% for the 1991 cohort) and 5.8% for 3 doses of vaccine (0% to 20.6%) (Fig 3). Catch-up vaccination coverage therefore increased over time.

Fig 3

Vaccination rate according to birth cohort and age.

(A) Cumulative HPV vaccine coverage for at least 1 dose. (B) Cumulative HPV vaccine coverage for 3 doses.

The non-vaccinated population was 38,323 women, and the vaccinated population was 4,129 women (Table 2). The mean age at the end of the study was lower in the vaccinated population (27.5 years) than in the non-vaccinated population (30.3 years, p<10−5). The percentage of patients treated for a chronic long-term illness (affection de longue durée: ALD) was not significantly different between the two groups: 5.7% in the overall population, 5.8% in the vaccinated population and 5.7% in the non-vaccinated population (p = 0.72). In France, long-term illness (ALD) refers to one of the thirty chronic diseases (hypertension, multiple sclerosis, etc.) on the list drawn up by the French health insurance system. It gives rise to full reimbursement of care related to this pathology.

Table 2

Characteristics of the overall population and the vaccinated and non-vaccinated subgroups.

	Overall (n = 42,452)	Vaccinated (n = 4,129)	Non-vaccinated (n = 38,323)	P
Mean age at the end of follow-up (years)	30.0	27.5	30.3	<10−5*
ALD° rate, n (%)	2,408 (5.7%)	239 (5.8%)	2,169 (5.7%)	0.72α
Vaccination rate for ≥ 1 dose, n (%)	4,129 (9.7%)
Vaccination rate for ≥ 3 doses, n (%)	2,585 (6.1%)

Values are expressed as mean or number of patients (%).

°ALD: chronic long-term illness.

*t-test.

αChi-square test.

During the follow-up period, 16 conizations were performed between the ages of 19 and 30 years in the vaccinated group versus 174 conizations in the non-vaccinated group. The conization rate between the ages of 19 and 30 years was significantly lower in the vaccinated group, with a Hazard Ratio of 0.59 (95% CI[0.39–0.90]; p = 0.043) (Fig 4A). The conization rate for patients over the age of 25 (birth cohorts from 1987 to 1991) was also calculated, corresponding to the population screened by Pap smears. In this population, the Hazard Ratio for conization rate was 0.57 (95% CI[0.32–1.01]; p = 0.052) (Fig 4B). At the age of 30 years, corresponding to the end of follow-up, conization had been performed in 0.18% of women in the vaccinated group versus 0.68% of women in the non-vaccinated group.

Fig 4

a. Conizations between the ages of 19 and 30 years for women born between 1987 and 1991. b. Conizations between the ages of 25 and 30 years for women born between 1987 and 1991.

Health care utilization data are presented in Table 3. Patients in the vaccinated group had consulted their general practitioner more often (mean of 3.8 consultations per year before the age of 25 years compared to 2.5 for non-vaccinated patients, p<10−3), but had consulted their gynecologist less often (mean of 0.60 consultations per year before the age of 25 years compared to 0.19 for vaccinated patients, p<10−3). Vaccinated patients were younger at the age of the first Pap smear (21 years versus 24 years for non-vaccinated women, p<10−3), and a higher proportion of women had their first Pap smear before the age of 25 years in the non-vaccinated group (13.5% versus 5.4%, p<10−3).

Table 3

Cares received by overall population and subgroups vaccinated and non-vaccinated.

	Overall (n = 42,452)	Vaccinated (n = 4,129)	Non-vaccinated (n = 38,323)	P*
Annual number of family medicine consultations before the age of 25	2.7 (+/-0.003)	3.8 (+/-0.001)	2.5 (+/-0.003)	<10−5
Annual number of gynecologist consultations before the age of 25	0.6 (+/-0.001)	0.2 (+/-0.002)	0.6 (+/-0.001)	<10−5
Pap smear rate before the age of 25, n (%)	5,378 (12.7%)	223 (5.4%)	5,155 (13.5%)	<10−5
Pap smear rate at any age, n (%)	13,455 (31.7%)	1,272 (30.8%)	12,183 (31.8%)	0.20
Mean age at first Pap smear	23.77 (+/-3.6)	21.02 (+/-3.2)	24.05 (+/-3.5)	<10−5
Mean age at conization	26.90 (+/-2.9)	25.29 (+/-2.8)	26.98 (+/-2.9)	0.005

Values are expressed as mean (+/- standard deviation) or number of patients (%).

*t-tests.

Discussion

We report the first study on the impact of catch-up HPV vaccination in a real-life population in France, based on National Health Insurance database. In this cohort, consisting of 42,452 women, the average vaccination rate was 9.8%, lower than that reported in other countries for the same period [28-30].

The primary outcome, the conization rate, was significantly lower with an almost 50% reduction in the vaccinated group taking into account all conizations performed between the ages of 19 and 30 years.

The PATRICIA trial allowed approval of Cervarix® in various countries [31, 32]. This randomized trial involved 18,644 women aged 15 to 25 years, and studied the result of 3 doses of Cervarix® versus placebo. In the 4-year analysis, the conization rate was decreased by 25% (p = 0.0035). With a mean follow-up of 6.4 years, vaccination was 72% effective to prevent CIN2+ [33].

FUTUR I and II trials tested Gardasil® [34, 35]. FUTUR I included 5,455 women aged 16 to 24 years and FUTUR II included 12,167 women aged 15 to 26 years. Patients were randomized to a 3-dose vaccination arm or a placebo arm. In FUTUR I, no significant difference in the CIN2+ rate was observed after a follow-up of 3 years. In FUTUR II, 3 years after the first injection, intention-to-treat analysis showed a non-significant 17% reduction of CIN2+, while per protocol analysis demonstrated vaccination to be almost 100% effective.

The rates of cervical lesions were higher in these studies with a shorter follow-up than in our study. There are probably two reasons for this difference: the method of monitoring patients and the primary outcome. In the FUTUR trials, patients were followed by Pap smears starting 3 months after their inclusion in the study, may resulting in overdiagnosis [36].

The first Australian population study [15] included 14,085 non-vaccinated women and 24,871 women vaccinated with Gardasil® from two national registries. This study included women between the ages of 17 and 22 years. The risk of high-grade cytological lesions was lower in the vaccinated group with a HR of 0.72 (95% CI[0.58–0.91]). The second Australian study was a case-control study based on registry data [16]. It included 108,353 women aged 14 to 30 years at the time of their first Pap smear. The Gardasil® vaccine was administered as a 3-dose regimen. The odds ratio for exposure to 3 doses of vaccines was 0.54 (95% CI[0.43–0.67]) for CIN2+.

A Swedish study by Herweijer et al. also evaluated the effect of Gardasil® in a registry population [18]. This study included 1,333,691 women with a vaccination rate of 17.7% and 22,616 cases of CIN2+. Incidence rate ratios for CIN2+ were 0.25 when vaccination was performed before the age of 16 years and 0.78 when vaccination was performed after the age of 20 years, in favor of early vaccination.

The effectiveness of Gardasil® on dysplasia was studied using Danish registry data [19]. This study cohort consisted of 399,244 women, 62% of whom were vaccinated. There were 708 cases of CIN2+ across the entire cohort. A significant reduction of CIN2+ was observed in vaccinated women: HR was 0.56 and 0.27 (p = 0.005) for 1991–1992 and 1993–1994 birth cohorts, respectively. Either no events or no significant difference was observed in the other cohorts.

The results of our study are comparable to those of per protocol analysis of the initial studies and population-based studies conducted in other countries. This decrease in the conization rate in a catch-up population, which is not the target population of HPV vaccination, is encouraging, but also highlights the fact that the highest efficacy of vaccination is observed in the target population—i.e. before HPV exposure. In our study and in the PATRICIA study, the conization rate was lower in vaccinated patients, but this difference was only observed 2 or more years after vaccination, which could possibly be explained by the fact that vaccination does not prevent dysplasia in previously infected patients [37]. In the light of these data and the higher vaccination coverage rate in the target population (compared to the catch-up population), vaccination of the target population before the onset of sexual activity would be more effective. This effect can also be measured by the effectiveness of vaccination by age at vaccination as previously described [18]. Unfortunately, it was not possible to perform this type of analysis due to the low number of events in the vaccinated group.

Our study compared vaccinated women (regardless of the number of doses) with unvaccinated women, to fit the intention-to-treat design of a real-life study. Other studies used the same endpoint [15, 17], whereas the Australian study [16] compared the efficacy of each number of doses and the Swedish study [18] used the full schedule. The results of these studies were all consistent even though full vaccination had better efficacy. In our study, we evaluated health care consumption to investigate the determinants of vaccination and to control for potential biases. The higher health care consumption in the vaccinated group is probably a follow-up bias, as these patients consulted more often and were therefore more likely to be offered vaccination. As Pap smears and consultations were more frequent in this group, leading to more frequent and earlier diagnosis of cervical dysplasia, reduction of the conization rate is an even more encouraging result. The results were not adjustable for these potential biases due to the low number of events in the vaccinated group.

This study presents certain limitations: a small part of the French population (<8%) is not covered by the EGB data, and health care data collection is extensive, but its exhaustiveness and accuracy depend on precise transcription by health care professionals, especially coding of diagnoses and procedures. Another endpoint had to be used to study high-grade cervical dysplasia because the health data collected in the EGB do not provide any information about this diagnosis. Finally, another limitation of this study concerns the absence of "vaccination performed" data. Consequently, patients were considered to be vaccinated on the basis of vaccine reimbursement, rather than the actual vaccination procedure. This same type of bias is also observed in other population-based cohort studies. Vaccination is not always systematically performed as part of a vaccination program and the doses administered may not always be reliably recorded. Organized cervical cancer screening is not available in all of France and, even when it is available, individual screening remains frequent, possibly leading to differences in follow-up according to socio-economic categories, which also constitutes a vaccination bias [15-18].

This study of the efficacy of vaccination in the catch-up population may lack power in this population with a higher rate of pre-vaccination HPV infection than younger women corresponding to the primary indication. This weakness is also observed in other population-based studies that did not provide any information about the HPV status of the women before vaccination [15-18].

The EGB is a powerful tool, as it constitutes a random sample of 1/97th of the insured French population and, although the study was retrospective, data were collected prospectively. The use of a general population cohort provides real-life results; women are not monitored according to their vaccination status or screening status, so there is no risk of over-management. This real-life study on the French population therefore presents a high external validity.

The positive results of this study concerning the efficacy of HPV vaccination in the French population encourage an improvement in vaccination coverage, which is low in our study, as in previous studies. The main obstacles are: vaccine inequalities that can be superimposed on social inequalities [38], fear of side effects, poorly trained and informed physicians facing patients’ refusal [39].

The possible levers of a public health strategy are a vaccination campaign, in schools for example, training of doctors who could better inform patients of the benefits and risks of vaccines, and a public communication campaign.A subsequent study conducted according to the same methodology could provide long-term results on the prevention of dysplasia and cervical cancer in this catch-up population, but also in the target population. These girls have better immunization against HPV and the HPV infection rate is lower than in the catch-up population, which would suggest a higher efficacy on the conization rate. This study provides more arguments in favour of a higher HPV vaccination rate in France.

11 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-11439

Impact of catch-up human papillomavirus vaccination on cervical conization rate in a real-life population in France

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Elies,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Beyond the minor language corrections and improvements this would be a good opportunity to expand the discussion on the indicated points as well as the limitations of the study.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 26 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see:  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at  https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ivan Sabol

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

3.  Thank you for stating in the text of your manuscript "Data were extracted from the French National Health Insurance database called Echantillon Généraliste des Bénéficiaires (EGB), which is a permanent sample of the population covered by national health insurance". Please clarify whether this data was anonymized before researchers accessed it. Please also add all of this information to your ethics statement in the online submission form."

4. Thank you for including your manuscript text: "An institutional committee validates each research project." Please amend your current ethics statement to state:

a) whether ethics committee approval was specifically granted for this study

b) if so, include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

P5L100 space issue “(24) .”

P6 L110 decimal comma used in table 1

P7 L141 Fig 2 flowchart is unclear. Right side box 1 requires women to be older than 25 in 2007. Next box states those are women born before 1991. However, a woman born in 1990 would be only 17 in 2007 instead of 25 as required by preceding box

P7 L147 statistical test used for Table 2 (for example) is not listed. Please consider stating all p values without an exponent and list the test used at least once for each stretch of p values shown.

P8 L159. Fig 3 lacks legend at least for panels/parts of the figure

P9 L171 Table 2 uses a thousand separator for large numbers, Tables 1 and 3 dont. Standard deviation is mentioned in the footer but not shown in Table 2.

P9 L187 Fig 4 uses decimal points and decimal comma inconsistently

P10L200 Table 3 it should probably be “mean age AT Pap/conization” instead of mean age of conization. In the header, non-vaccinated group is listed as “No-vaccinated”

P11 L208 inconsistent use of brackets for references “[26-28].”

P12 L246 it should probably be highlighted that most studies by other authors discussed in the discussion focused on 3 vaccine doses, while the current study mostly highlighted 1+ vaccine dose results

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Re. the manuscript: Impact of catch-up human papillomavirus vaccination on 2 cervical conization rate in a real-life population in France

This is a retrospective real-life cohort study based on data collected by the French National Health Insurance. The aim of the study is to evaluate the impact of catch-up HPV vaccination on the rates of conization in France in a large population-based study.

page 3, line 39: It is stated that “Conization is part of the treatment of cervical dysplasia and cancer” … should probably be “Conization is part of the treatment of cervical dysplasia and early stage cancer

page 3, line 49: “group immunity” should rather be “herd protection” or “group pretection”

page 3, line 55-57: Relevant to mention that recently published papers on real world effectiveness against cervical cancer from Sweden and Denmark.

page 7, line 131: it is stated “The main outcome was a reduction of the conization rate between the 132 non-vaccinated and vaccinated populations” should probably be

“The main outcome was a comparison of the conization rate between the 132 non-vaccinated and vaccinated populations”

Nice study, however, based on very few exposed cases (N=16). The limitations should also include the fact that it was not possible to adjust for differences between vaccinated and non-vaccinated. In addition, it was not possible to consider age at vaccination, which has turned out to be an important factor when looking at effectiveness.

Have the authors tried to restrict the analysis even further to birth cohorts with higher coverage – e.g. birth cohorts 1989-1991? or will you then loose too much power. The women belonging to birth cohorts with a low coverage may have specific reasons to be vaccinated – in other words, they may have a different behavior/risk factor profile linked to a higher or lower exposure to HPV pre-vaccination

Reviewer #2: An interesting article which describes a potential clinical impact of HPV vaccine in France through the observation of conisation data derived from a national source

The article is well written and in general the data support the conclusions drawn

There are some issues with the manuscript, however, that would benefit from address:

The authors state on p5 that Gardasil AND Cervarix were the vaccines offered over the period of the evaluation, but I could not see any information as to what the estimated relevant proportions of the separate vaccines were. This would be valuable data as there is some evidence to indicate differential performance of the vaccines particularly in relation to cervical disease outcomes

The authors do not present information on deprivation - was a proxy of this not available from the national data set?

I understand that it is not a key deliverable of the manuscript but some more discussion of why vaccine uptake rates are low in France compared to other countries would be welcome and also implications for herd immunity (or lack thereof)

There are a couple of unusual phrases - eg page 12, line 250 "HPV contamination" arguably should be "HPV exposure" - I am also not sure what a "General scheme population" is, as described on page 13

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Kate Cuschieri

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

18 Nov 2021

Editor Comments:

3. Thank you for stating in the text of your manuscript "Data were extracted from the French National Health Insurance database called Echantillon Généraliste des Bénéficiaires (EGB), which is a permanent sample of the population covered by national health insurance". Please clarify whether this data was anonymized before researchers accessed it. Please also add all of this information to your ethics statement in the online submission form."

EGB data is pseudonymized before researchers access it. There is one identifier per patient, but no identifying data.

4. Thank you for including your manuscript text: "An institutional committee validates each research project." Please amend your current ethics statement to state:

a) whether ethics committee approval was specifically granted for this study

b) if so, include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

The Institut Curie, as a cancer center, has access to EGB data. Access is however restricted to researchers from the Institute who have validated training provided by the Health Insurance. Each project with analysis of these data is reviewed by an internal committee of Ethics and Science in Institut Curie.

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

This study involved third-party data (National Health Insurance – EGB). Therefore, we do not have the rights to share these third-party data, in accordance with regulations SNDS (Système National des Données de Santé).

Law governing the dissemination of SNDS data : L. 1461-1 III du code de la santé publique R. 1461-1 du code de la santé publique

For more information : https://www.snds.gouv.fr/SNDS/Finalites-autorisees

Therefore we are in the “a)” situation, with legal restictions on sharing a de-identified data set.

To access the EGB data, please visit this website to apply for dataset : https://documentation-snds.health-data-hub.fr/introduction/03-acces-snds.html#les-acces-permanents

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

P5L100 space issue “(24) .”

Corrected

P6 L110 decimal comma used in table 1

Corrected

P7 L141 Fig 2 flowchart is unclear. Right side box 1 requires women to be older than 25 in 2007. Next box states those are women born before 1991. However, a woman born in 1990 would be only 17 in 2007 instead of 25 as required by preceding box

This is a typo, in the box to the right must be at least 25 years old in 2016 to be eligible for screening

P7 L147 statistical test used for Table 2 (for example) is not listed. Please consider stating all p values without an exponent and list the test used at least once for each stretch of p values shown.

All statistical tests were added in methods and in each table.

The R software cannot calculate a p-value lower than 2.2*10-16, as this value would not be very readable in a table we have replaced <2.2*10-16 by the value <10-5, which has a largely sufficient statistical value

P8 L159. Fig 3 lacks legend at least for panels/parts of the figure

Corrected

P9 L171 Table 2 uses a thousand separator for large numbers, Tables 1 and 3 dont. Standard deviation is mentioned in the footer but not shown in Table 2.

Corrected

P9 L187 Fig 4 uses decimal points and decimal comma inconsistently

Corrected

P10L200 Table 3 it should probably be “mean age AT Pap/conization” instead of mean age of conization. In the header, non-vaccinated group is listed as “No-vaccinated”

Corrected

P11 L208 inconsistent use of brackets for references “[26-28].”

Corrected

P12 L246 it should probably be highlighted that most studies by other authors discussed in the discussion focused on 3 vaccine doses, while the current study mostly highlighted 1+ vaccine dose results

A paragraph was added on this point to discuss the effect according to the number of doses administered P14 L263

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:

page 3, line 39: It is stated that “Conization is part of the treatment of cervical dysplasia and cancer” … should probably be “Conization is part of the treatment of cervical dysplasia and early stage cancer

The sentence has been corrected

page 3, line 49: “group immunity” should rather be “herd protection” or “group pretection”

Replaced by herd immunity

page 3, line 55-57: Relevant to mention that recently published papers on real world effectiveness against cervical cancer from Sweden and Denmark.

The reference has been added with a comment P3 L57

page 7, line 131: it is stated “The main outcome was a reduction of the conization rate between the 132 non-vaccinated and vaccinated populations” should probably be

“The main outcome was a comparison of the conization rate between the 132 non-vaccinated and vaccinated populations”

The sentence has been corrected

Nice study, however, based on very few exposed cases (N=16). The limitations should also include the fact that it was not possible to adjust for differences between vaccinated and non-vaccinated.

In addition, it was not possible to consider age at vaccination, which has turned out to be an important factor when looking at effectiveness.

The manuscript has been revised to discuss these two points P14 L273 and 259

Have the authors tried to restrict the analysis even further to birth cohorts with higher coverage – e.g. birth cohorts 1989-1991? or will you then loose too much power.

The exclusion of cohorts poses several problems: decrease of power, the study is no longer addressing all catch-up vaccination but just a part, increase of family-wise error rate.

The women belonging to birth cohorts with a low coverage may have specific reasons to be vaccinated – in other words, they may have a different behavior/risk factor profile linked to a higher or lower exposure to HPV pre-vaccination

The increase of the vaccine coverage in time is explained by the fact that there is no vaccine campaign but a vaccine by individual approach (coming from the doctor or the patient), therefore the implementation of the vaccination is slow. This low vaccine coverage is addressed in the introduction, we have developed this "French" problem in the discussion P15 L302 with references added

Reviewer #2:

The authors state on p5 that Gardasil AND Cervarix were the vaccines offered over the period of the evaluation, but I could not see any information as to what the estimated relevant proportions of the separate vaccines were. This would be valuable data as there is some evidence to indicate differential performance of the vaccines particularly in relation to cervical disease outcomes

Unfortunately, the only information available in the data extracted from this reimbursement database was the number of dose and the dates of dispensing. The type of vaccine was not included in the data.

The authors do not present information on deprivation - was a proxy of this not available from the national data set?

The EGB is a health database that does not contain socio-economic data

I understand that it is not a key deliverable of the manuscript but some more discussion of why vaccine uptake rates are low in France compared to other countries would be welcome and also implications for herd immunity (or lack thereof)

There is no vaccine campaign in France but a vaccine by individual approach (coming from the doctor or the patient). This low vaccine coverage is addressed in the introduction, we have developed this "French" problem in the discussion P15 L302

There are a couple of unusual phrases - eg page 12, line 250 "HPV contamination" arguably should be "HPV exposure" - I am also not sure what a "General scheme population" is, as described on page 13

The word has been replaced. The notion of general regime was clarified in the discussion: it corresponds to more than 92% of the population, i.e. less than 8% excluded

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

4 Feb 2022

10 Feb 2022

Response to Reviewers

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Response :

The reviewer did not specify in his comments why he disagrees on this point. All necessary information has been provided in the texts and forms regarding restrictions on publicly sharing data

________________________________________

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have adequately responded to the comments. However, the new sentence on p. 3:

"More recently, a large Swedish cohort study showed a reduced risk of invasive

cervical cancer among girls and women vaccinated (20)" should be something like ...

So far, only two large cohort studies studies - one from Swedish (20) and one from Denmark (ref) have shown a reduced risk of invasive cervical cancer among girls and women vaccinated"

Ref: Real-World Effectiveness of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Against Cervical Cancer.

Kjaer SK, Dehlendorff C, Belmonte F, Baandrup L.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021 Oct 1;113(10):1329-1335

As cervical cancer is the ultimate end point, it is important to mention both of the only two papers which have currently documented effectiveness in this regard.

Response :

The Danish study has been added to the manuscript, thank you for this comment.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is improved as a result of the revision(s) - i also accept the limitations the authors explain in relation to dissemination of the original data

Thank you.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

18 Feb 2022

Impact of catch-up human papillomavirus vaccination on cervical conization rate in a real-life population in France

PONE-D-21-11439R2

Dear Dr. Elies,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ivan Sabol

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

2 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-11439R2

Impact of catch-up human papillomavirus vaccination on cervical conization rate in a real-life population in France

Dear Dr. Eliès:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ivan Sabol

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE