The BCoDE project is funded through the Specific agreement

No 1 to Framework Partnership AgreementGRANT/2008/003. This study builds on the methodology and disease models outlined by the BCoDE project. The authors acknowledge the Burden of Communicable Disease in Europe (BCoDE) Consortium for the disease progression model and the BCoDE toolkit software application. In particular we thank Dr Alies van Lier and Dr Silvia Longhi for the work Bortezomib on the measles disease progression model and Prof Mirjam Kretzschmar for the support provided in the review of the manuscript. We also would like to thank Daniel Dr Lewandowski for the BCoDE toolkit software application. “
“There are two commercially available Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines licensed by the FDA for prevention of cervical cancer: Cervarix® (GlaxoSmithKline) and Gardasil® (Sanofi Pasteur MSD). Both vaccines prevent acquisition of HPV16 and 18 infections [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5] responsible for approximately 70% of cervical cancers and they offer some cross protection against other oncogenic strains of HPV [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10]. Clinical trial data has indicated that the vaccines are highly effective in preventing new cases of HPV16 and 18 associated diseases, with significantly lower rates of high

grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia DAPT order (CIN) and Adenocarcinoma in-situ diagnosed [11], [12], [13], [14] and [15].

Prevention of cancer is more likely in women who receive the HPV vaccination prior to exposure to the virus [6] and [16]. In the UK, a national HPV vaccination programme using the bivalent vaccine, Cervarix® was introduced in September 2008 in schools, with a recommended 3 doses administered to girls aged 12–13 years. A two-year catch-up vaccine arm was added for older girls who potentially would still benefit from the immune response induced by the HPV vaccine. Such a comprehensive national vaccination programme is expected to change the epidemiology of cervical cancer in the UK population. However, L-NAME HCl the impact of such a programme will depend on vaccine uptake, cervical screening uptake and the risk of exposure in women who are not vaccinated and not screened. If women who are unvaccinated choose not to attend for cervical screening, and have high risk of exposure to HPV, then the impact of the vaccination programme will be less than predicted, with potential to increase inequalities in cervical cancer incidence in the population. In order to understand the likely impact of the HPV vaccination programme for cervical cancer incidence it is important to understand the screening behaviour of women according to whether or not they have been vaccinated.