Probably HPV is infectious but not the cancer cells. 

Dear Taissir,

In 2014’ survey of the factors associated with genital human papillomavirus infection among adult females in the United States, cervical cancers infectious to other people were not mentioned, or even suggested. The study found that 41.9% of U.S. females aged 18-59 years tested positive for genital HPV infection. It was determined that individuals with more sexual partners, with a lower education level, with non-Hispanic black race, and with no insurance were the populations at greatest risk.

Best wishes.

Ilya

Infectious diseases are ones that transmit by infecting others. Cancers do not infect people, though some of the risk factors for cancers may be infectious.

You could describe cervical cancer as a (relatively rare) complication of an HPV infection.

As already mentioned above, cervical cancer itself is not infectious.

and as is well documented many women may have a transient infection with HPV which does not cause dysplastic cell change and therefore does not cause cancer

Thank you, take for example the flu. If someone who has the flu and sneeze, the flu virus will make another person sick. The other components in the sneeze droplets are not going to cause the flu. The flu virus, e.g. in the sneeze droplets, upon contact with another susceptible healthy person will cause the flu in that person. 

Then, it is true that not all cancers are infectious, but, for sure, some cancers are infectious. May be the misunderstanding is in the nomenclature. Furthermore, at least some essential aspects of cancers metastasization is really, I think, a cell-to-cell infection, basicly. Even though, the metastasizing cancer cell, which can not be considered as a normal cell anymore, is not a "virus" but by all means it could be considered an infectious agent.

Another example, may be is the prion diseases. The prion assume the rule of infecting other normal proteins. 

The term "infectious agent" may be should be extended (or updated) beyond the classical nomenclature or terminology i.e. a foreign living organism, per se, such as bacteria, protozoa, fungi, helminths (worms), and viruses.

https://www.google.com/search?q=infectious+agent&oq=infectious+agent&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/44003/title/Image-of-the-Day--Bridging-the-Gap/

A cancer cell during Metastatization starts growing in another location in the same animal. What are the chances of  it growing in another host?  If it can infect another animal, grow there with chances of  further spread to other animals, then it can be defined infectious.

In case of prions, they are transmissible to other animals and replicate(?) in new host  with a possibility of spreading to other animals.

Some HPV types are responsibile for appearing cervical cancer. However, man with HPV infections may be transite HPV infection to sexuall intercourse to female and than we have chronic HPV infection of cervix and conequtive cervical cancer. 

Dear Taissir

certain cancers are indeed infectious and transmissible, such as veneral canine cancers  or tasmanian devil facial disease. But to my knowledge there is no equivalent in humans to any of these transmissible cancers. Infection by oncogenic HPVs is a necessary prerequisite for developing virtually all cervical cancers, the vast majority of anal cancers, a significant fraction of vaginal cancers, and a subset of penile, vulvar and oropharyngeal cancers. But in cervix (the best studied among all anatomical locations) roughly 98% of the infections by oncogenic HPVs are resolved and do not lead to a lesion, and roughly 98% of the lesions do not progress to cancers.

So, oncogenic HPVs are transmissible, but the cancers they cause are not.

HPV viruses and HSV viruses have possible oncogenic potention (11, 16 and other types), with very late period of appaeraing of cancer.  

Infections or infectious diseases are defined as being transmissible. The cancers they may lead to are possible consequences, but per se not transmissible. Therefore, they should not be called infectious diseases.

It should not be infectious diseases cetranly. 

Again, these tumors are possible manifestations of the respective infections or infectious diseases, but not involved in further transmission of the infectious agents. It's a matter of semantics!

Thank you, we do not say that the flu is a possible manifestation of the flu virus, we say that the flu is an infectious disease that is caused by the flu virus. Same should be said about papillomavirus and cervical cancer. The flu virus can cause, in this case, "only" the flu disease. Maybe this is why it was a straightforward matter. But in the case of papillomavirus there is more reasoning. Let's not forget only until recently that we have accepted the idea that papillomavirus could indeed cause cancer let alone now we have to accept or at least think about the idea that it is infectious! In addition, there are some studies that shows that at a certain point the cancerous cell itself, no other, become the infecting agent, e.g. no virus needed! Also, there are many research where mice are infected with cancer by infecting them with cancer cells "only".

Infections can be cured by anti-infectives, but cancers cannot!

Let us visit Koch's Postulates

Four criteria that were established by Robert Koch to identify the causative agent of a particular disease, these include:

the microorganism or other pathogen must be present in all cases of the disease

the pathogen can be isolated from the diseased host and grown in pure culture

the pathogen from the pure culture must cause the disease when inoculated into a healthy, susceptible laboratory animal

the pathogen must be reisolated from the new host and shown to be the same as the originally inoculated pathogen

HPV virus follows the postulates not the cancer cells. 

For the argument about your argument" Also, there are many research where mice are infected with cancer by infecting them with cancer cells "only"" it can never fulfill the last criteria.

Clusters of ALL have been reported, this pointed to Viral Oncogenesis, however, it seems the Genetic background is important too, not all kids infected with some viruses, eg, EBV, develop a malignancy. Search for viruses in Breast cancer, discovered in rodents, was fruitless, but the doubt remains, the concept of viral Oncogenesis in human Breast ca even arrived to a novel by the Spanish psychiatrist Luis Martin-Santos: 'Tiempo de silencio' (Silence time).

I don't fully agree with G Schüpbach, CMV was linked to GBM, and some groups obtained improvements in GBM with Valganciclovir and Cidofovir, anti-CMV agents, the effect on tumors of H pylori eradication, or Macrolide therapy in some MALT Lymphoma is also of current use, I was told about an Spanish rural physician, many decades ago, who presented a publication about: 'gusarapa cancerae', 'cancer worm', because he though having detected worms in a pathology slide from a cancer patient, in the end, it were cotton strands from clothes...

Thanks, + salut

infection  are the result of micro-organism invasion and can be cured with antibiotics or antibodies, while most of the cancers are due to oncogenic transformation of some cells of the own body.

The original question was about terminology. It would definitely be wrong NOT to classify cervical cancer as cancer, because that is what they are, even though they are are induced by an infectious agent. There are many other examples of cancers induced by infectious agents, take all the retrovirus-induced tumors in birds, mice, cats, cattle etc and also the HTLV-induced adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma in man. Why should these diseases, as well as cervical cancer, possibly some brain tumors and others, not be called cancers? They consist of bodily cells (not the causing infectious agents) with unlimited growth, that invade and destroy the surrounding tissues and metastasize, thus leading to death.