This is a somewhat different category, vaccines that are supposed to direct antibodies against cancer tumors. The HPV/HBV ones are more traditional anti-viral vaccines that confer immunity to certain viruses, rather than specifically anti-cancer ones. They also have the effect of reducing cancer rates, since those viruses increase cancer rates, but only as a side-effect of preventing the viral infection.

Although, as another comment points out, even in the directly anti-cancer category this isn't actually the first; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sipuleucel-T is already approved.

That's a bit like saying sunscreen is a vaccine for skin cancer.

No, actually, it is like saying there is a vaccine that prevents many cervical cancers. And there is:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cervical-cancer-vaccine/WO0...

If you're a woman under age 26 you should get this at once.

The cited article totally skips over these existing vaccines, of course. Probably someone along the line deleted one too many words from a more factually accurate sentence in the original press release.

And it's increasingly showing value for boys as well - http://www.slate.com/id/2296748/pagenum/all

Saddens me that the take up has not been much, much higher, but I have other forums for expressing my views on anti-vaccination liars.

Sad to say it but the reason the HPV vaccines haven't been more popular has little to do with anti-vaccination propaganda, and much more to do with anti-sexual-promiscuity propaganda. Lots of people -- including many, many, many women -- think that vaccinating their daughters against HPV will encourage them to be promiscuous and that it is somehow preferable to risk their lives.

True, and from what I understand that's more the case in the US where the 'Abstinence Only' type model is more common (compared to Australia). Given the choice between sex and cancer, I know which one I'd prefer my child to be hiding from me - I'd also much prefer they understood safe sex, as opposed to an all or nothing approach.