Should Gardasil be called a 'cancer vaccine'?

A few weeks back, we were asked by a reporter whether it was misleading to refer to Gardasil as a 'cancer vaccine'. The phrase has been widely used of late -- and not only by the media. Both the FDA and Merck refer to Gardasil as a 'cervical cancer vaccine' in their press releases this month announcing the product's licensure.

We hadn't thought much about the issue at the time, but it didn't (and still doesn't) strike us as dishonest. There's no dispute regarding the link between HPV and cervical cancer, and the data show that Gardasil prevents infection from HPV strains responsible for 70% of such cancers. The fact that the vaccine is less than 100% protective against cervical cancer has no impact on whether it can rightly be called a 'cervical cancer vaccine,' since no vaccine available provides complete protection.

Gardasil is beneficial for multiple reasons, but cervical cancer is clearly the most prominent of the group. From a medical perspective, referring to it as a cervical cancer vaccine is prudent, as public awareness of HPV (and, in particular, its close link to cancer) is lacking. A vaccine against cervical cancer is much more likely to attract patient interest than one against 'human papillomavirus,' meaning that more people who should receive the vaccine actually will. Meanwhile, there's no denying that the branding of Gardasil as a cervical cancer vaccine is a shrewd (but appropriate) marketing decision by Merck.

A story in today's Charleston (W.V.) Gazette is the first we've seen that discusses this topic. Most of those interviewed in the story appear to share our view, with the chief reservation being that the branding ignores the other benefits of vaccination. True, but the additional attention Gardasil receives as a 'cervical cancer vaccine' will likely put it in a better position to accomplish its full range of benefits for a greater number of people.