Talk:Vaccine-associated sarcoma

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veterinary medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Veterinary medicine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veterinary medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicineTemplate:WikiProject Veterinary medicineVeterinary medicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cats C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cats. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.CatsWikipedia:WikiProject CatsTemplate:WikiProject CatsCats articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Core vaccines

Is the revised core vaccine frequency a direct result of the VAS task force studies? There is no link between core vaccine and VAS so why would that be the case? --Dodo bird 12:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the revised vaccination schedule is a result of VAS task force guidelines. I should have included rabies in that list of core vaccines - it is now included. It has been easier to link rabies and FeLV vaccines to VAS because these are killed vaccines and include an aluminum adjuvant, which was found within the tumors. Modified-live vaccines do not contain this adjuvant, so studies linking them to tumors have not had a "smoking gun", if you will, but epidemiologically the evidence is still pretty strong. Actually, other injections frequently given to cats such as methylprednisolone and lufenuron have also been associated with VAS. This roundtable discussion is pretty interesting, if you want some further reading. --Joelmills 23:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I read that discussion a while back but didn't remember the injection/sarcoma link. My question was asked as this article specifically stated that "Tumor formation at the site of a topically administered vaccine has not been reported" for FPV, FHV and FCV. I suppose it may be outdated. Are there any specific case where those three vaccines are linked with sarcoma formation or is it just an injection > inflammation > sarcoma link?

And would it be correct to say that the revised frequency is based not so much on the sarcoma scare but on the fact that those vaccines work way longer than one year?(Even though the studies that led to the change may have been based on the sarcoma scare.) The FPV article has a similar problem.

I think the precaution section should start with saying that FLV and rabies should not be routinely used but chosen based on risk/benefit factor and in the case of rabies, legal obligations, since these two are the main cause of sarcoma. By not mentioning that, it may look like the core vaccines are the main culprit. Also, rabies vaccines are not part of a "core vaccine" in rabies free countries. --Dodo bird 08:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "topically administered vaccine" is an intranasal vaccine, and these have not been associated with VAS. Most FPV, FHV, and FCV vaccines given are injectable, and I've seen references to studies indicating a link between them and VAS. It seems like as far as potential to cause VAS, rabies/FeLV are greater than FPV/FCV/FHV are greater than lufenuron/methylprednisolone/long-acting penicillin. Not that there has been a study proving that, but the data definitely points towards it.

I think that before the VAS scare most vets were content to do yearly vaccines because there were not any reasons not to, and that was the vaccine manufacturer's recommendation. I don't think there were any duration of immunity studies past one year before VAS became an issue. I think that the revised frequency was a direct result of the VAS scare, but most vets were not willing to change until there were duration of immunity studies available. This is just my opinion, but the three year guidelines only came into being after VAS was discovered, and I think the citation I gave in the article for that line says something like, "we are recommending a three year guideline because of VAS". I'll have to check that later though.

Lastly, I know that this article is US-centric, but I have no idea of the way this is handled in other countries. Rabies is usually considered a core vaccine here (I think). And I agree the precautions section could be a little clearer, I'll work on that later. --Joelmills 23:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction re: topically administered vaccine. How the hell did I associate "applied to skin" with injections! I have been reading it wrong all this while. Argh!

The paragraph from the cited Winn Feline Foundation article regarding administration frequency is

Though annual revaccination has been the professional standard, more recent information suggests that the duration of immunity (DOI) exceeds one year for many feline vaccines today. The panel recommends booster intervals for vaccines against FPV, FHV-1, and FCV every three years. Cats at high risk of exposure, such as those entering boarding facilities, or shown frequently at cat shows, may benefit from more frequent revaccination. DOI studies indicate that three-year rabies vaccines demonstrate effective immunity.

(For the record, FPV vaccines last at least 7 years while FHV1 and FCV last at least 3. source: the maxhouse.com link above)

Actually the whole article only has one mention of VAS, and that is that the VASTF vaccine site recommendations should be followed. I suspect the lack of mention of VAS may be more of them wanting to play down the link between VAS and over-vaccination than it being irrelevant to the revision. --Dodo bird 01:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human

Has VAS ever been reported in humans? Given that it can occur in cats, it's not far-fetched to think it might occur in humans. See also the article “Vaccine injury”.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]