Comparing the performance of FAM19A4 methylation analysis,cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping for the detection of cervical (pre)cancer in high‐risk HPV‐positive women of a gynecologic outpatient population (COMETH study)

Recently, DNA methylation analysis of FAM19A4 in cervical scrapes has been shown to adequately detect high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer (≥CIN3) in high‐risk HPV (hrHPV)‐positive women. Here, we compared the clinical performance of FAM19A4 methylation analysis to cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping, separately and in combination, for ≥CIN3 detection in hrHPV‐positive women participating in a prospective observational multi‐center cohort study. The study population comprised hrHPV‐positive women aged 18–66 years, visiting a gynecological outpatient clinic. From these women, cervical scrapes and colposcopy‐directed biopsies (for histological confirmation) were obtained. Cervical scrapes were analyzed for FAM19A4 gene promoter methylation, cytology and HPV16/18 genotyping. Methylation analysis was performed by quantitative methylation‐specific PCR (qMSP). Sensitivities and specificities for ≥CIN3 were compared between tests. Stratified analyses were performed for variables that potentially influence marker performance. Of all 508 hrHPV‐positive women, the sensitivities for ≥CIN3 of cytology, FAM19A4 methylation analysis, and cytology combined with HPV16/18 genotyping were 85.6, 75.6 and 92.2%, respectively, with corresponding specificities of 49.8, 71.1 and 29.4%, respectively. Both sensitivity and specificity of FAM19A4 methylation analysis were associated with age (p ≤ 0.001 each). In women ≥30 years (n = 287), ≥CIN3 sensitivity of FAM19A4 methylation analysis was 88.3% (95%CI: 80.2–96.5) which was noninferior to that of cytology [85.5% (95%CI: 76.0–94.0)], at a significantly higher specificity [62.1% (95%CI: 55.8–68.4) compared to 47.6% (95%CI: 41.1–54.1)]. In conclusion, among hrHPV‐positive women from an outpatient population aged ≥30 years, methylation analysis of FAM19A4 is an attractive marker for the identification of women with ≥CIN3.     

Long-term CIN3+ risk in women with abnormal cytology; role of hrHPV testing

Background:

Many studies have examined the short-term value of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing in predicting cumulative risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cancer (CIN3+). This study focuses on long-term CIN3+ risk after initial wait and see policy.

Methods:

A total of 342 women with abnormal cytology of borderline/mild dyskaryosis (BMD) or worse (>BMD), included between 1990 and 1992, were followed-up by cytology and hrHPV testing until 1996 and monitored by cytology thereafter. Primary endpoint was cumulative CIN3+ risk by December 2009.

Results:

Women with BMD had a 5-year CIN3+ risk of 22.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 17.0–29.1) and of 0.7% (0.1–4.5) in the subsequent 5 years. High-risk human papillomavirus-negative women with BMD had a 5-year risk of <0.01% (95% CI 0.0–5.1) and of <0.01% (0.0–5.7) in the following 5 years, while for hrHPV-positive women these risks were 37.5% (29.0–46.9) and 1.6% (0.2–9.5), respectively. Women with >BMD had a 5-year risk of 45.1% (36.4–54.1) and of 3.5% (0.9–12.2) in the subsequent 5 years. High-risk human papillomavirus-negative women with >BMD had a 5-year risk of 7.3% (2.0–23.6) and hrHPV-positive women of 56.6% (46.4–66.3).

Conclusion:

Women with BMD have an elevated CIN3+ risk for 5 years only; afterwards their risk is similar to the general population. High-risk human papillomavirus-negative women with BMD may return to regular screening directly. All other women with ⩾BMD should be referred for additional testing and/or colposcopy.     

Triage of high-risk HPV positive women in cervical cancer screening

Introduction: High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing is expected to replace cytology as primary screening method for cervical cancer screening in an increasing number of countries. The high sensitivity of hrHPV testing is combined with a limited specificity which makes triaging of hrHPV positive women necessary. As an ideal triage method does not yet exist, an optimal triage strategy for hrHPV positive women based on current knowledge should be obtained. The aim of this article is to present an overview of available options for triage of hrHPV positive women, with their strengths and limitations and possible future opportunities.

Areas covered: Current knowledge on morphological biomarkers, molecular biomarkers and combined triage strategies will be discussed to give an overview of the state-of-the-art on triaging hrHPV positive women. The literature search was limited to studies on triage strategies for hrHPV positive women.

Expert commentary: Experience with morphology-based biomarkers makes these a valuable triage method. However, they lack the ability of differentiating productive from transforming infections. Molecular biomarkers are objective, highly reproducible, can be used in high throughput testing, and show promising results. With more extensive knowledge on these molecular markers, cervical cancer screening may transform to a full molecular screening in the future.     

Reduction in HPV16/18 prevalence among young women with high‐grade cervical lesions following the Japanese HPV vaccination program

The Japanese government began a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program for girls aged 12‐16 years in 2010 but withdrew its recommendation in 2013 because of potential adverse effects, leading to drastically reduced vaccination uptake. To evaluate population‐level effects of HPV vaccination, women younger than 40 years of age newly diagnosed with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1‐3 (CIN1‐3), adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS), or invasive cervical cancer (ICC) have been registered at 21 participating institutes each year since 2012. A total of 7709 women were registered during 2012‐2017, of which 5045 were HPV genotyped. Declining trends in prevalence of vaccine types HPV16 and HPV18 during a 6‐year period were observed in CIN1 (50.0% to 0.0%, P_trend < .0001) and CIN2‐3/AIS (83.3% to 45.0%, P_trend = .07) only among women younger than 25 years of age. Overall, HPV vaccination reduced the proportion of HPV16/18‐attributable CIN2‐3/AIS from 47.7% to 33.0% (P = .003): from 43.5% to 12.5% as routine vaccination (P = .08) and from 47.8% to 36.7% as catch‐up vaccination (P = .04). The HPV16/18 prevalence in CIN2‐3/AIS cases was significantly reduced among female individuals who received their first vaccination at age 20 years or younger (P = .02). We could not evaluate vaccination effects on ICC owing to low incidence of ICC among women aged less than 25 years. We found HPV vaccination to be effective in protecting against HPV16/18‐positive CIN/AIS in Japan; however, our data did not support catch‐up vaccination for women older than 20 years. Older adolescents who skipped routine vaccination due to the government’s suspension of its vaccine recommendation could benefit from receiving catch‐up vaccination before age 20 years.     

Evaluation of a validated methylation triage signature for human papillomavirus positive women in the HPV FOCAL cervical cancer screening trial

Human papillomavirus (HPV)-based cervical cancer screening requires triage of HPV positive women to identify those at risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or worse. We conducted a blinded case–control study within the HPV FOCAL randomized cervical cancer screening trial of women aged 25–65 to examine whether baseline methylation testing using the S5 classifier provided triage performance similar to an algorithm relying on cytology and HPV genotyping. Groups were randomly selected from women with known HPV/cytology results and pathology outcomes. Group 1: 104 HPV positive (HPV+), abnormal cytology (54 CIN2/3; 50 <CIN2); Group 2: 103 HPV+, normal cytology with HPV persistence at 12 mo. (53 CIN2/3; 50 <CIN2); Group 3: 50 HPV+, normal cytology with HPV clearance at 12 mo. (assumed <CIN2), total n=257. For the combined groups, S5 risk score CIN2/3 relative sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were compared with other triage approaches. Methylation showed a highly significant increasing trend with disease severity. For CIN3, S5 relative sensitivity and specificity were: 93.2% (95%CI: 81.4–98.0) and 41.8% (35.2–48.8), compared to 86.4% (75.0–95.7) and 49.8% (43.1–56.6) respectively for combined abnormal cytology/HPV16/18 positivity (differences not statistically significant at 5% level); adjusted PPVs were 18.2% (16.2–20.4) and 19.3% (16.6–22.2) respectively. S5 was also positive in baseline specimens from eight cancers detected during or after trial participation. The S5 methylation score had high sensitivity and PPV for CIN3, compatible with US and European thresholds for colposcopy referral. Methylation signatures can identify most HPV positive women at increased risk of cervical cancer from their baseline screening specimens.     

Risk of high‐grade precancerous lesions and invasive cancers in high‐risk HPV‐positive women with normal cervix or CIN 1 at baseline—A population‐based cohort study

Infection with high‐risk human papillomavirus (HR‐HPV) is transient and clears on its own in majority of the women. Only a few women who have persistent infection may finally develop cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or cervical cancer in later years. The risk of progression in the HR‐HPV‐positive women with normal cervix or low‐grade lesion on colposcopy and histopathology at baseline is less studied. We performed a longitudinal study on 650 HR‐HPV‐positive women with colposcopy and/or histopathology‐proved normal or CIN1 diagnosis at baseline to assess the cumulative risk of development of high‐grade CIN. After a mean follow‐up of 2.1 person years of observation (PYO) (range 0.1–5.1), the cumulative incidence of CIN2+ (6.4%; 3.0/100 PYO) was significantly higher in women who had persistent HR‐HPV infection compared to those who cleared the infection (adjusted HR 6.28; 95% CI 2.87–13.73). The risk of viral persistence in women aged 50–60 years was two times higher compared to women aged 40–49 years and three times higher compared to women aged 30–39 years. The probability of having persistent infection increased progressively with higher viral load at baseline (adjusted HR 3.29, 95% CI 2.21–4.90 for RLU ≥100; adjusted HR 2.69, 95% CI 1.71–4.22 for RLU 10–100). Women with increasing viral load at follow‐up had four times higher risk of developing CIN2 or worse lesions as compared to those with decreasing load (20.9% vs 4.8%; p < 0.001). In the context of developing countries where cytology or genotyping triaging is not feasible, colposcopy referral of HR‐HPV‐positive women with advancing age, viral persistence, and increasing viral load may be considered.     

High‐risk HPV testing on self‐sampled versus clinician‐collected specimens: A review on the clinical accuracy and impact on population attendance in cervical cancer screening

This review elaborates on the accuracy and feasibility of human papillomavirus (HPV) self‐sampling, i.e., offering self‐sampling of (cervico‐)vaginal cell material by women themselves in nonclinical settings for high‐risk HPV (hrHPV) detection in the laboratory, for cervical screening. To that end a bibliographic database search (PubMed) was performed to identify studies (published between January 1992 and January 2012) that compared clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self‐sampled material with that of cytology or HPV testing on clinician‐taken samples, and studies comparing response to offering HPV self‐sampling with a recall invitation. Overall, hrHPV testing on self‐samples appeared to be at least as, if not more, sensitive for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) as cytology on clinician‐obtained cervical samples, though often less specific. In most studies, hrHPV testing on self‐ and clinician‐sampled specimens is similarly accurate with respect to CIN2+ detection. Variations in clinical performance likely reflect the use of different combinations of collection devices and HPV tests. Because it is known that underscreened women are at increased risk of cervical cancer, targeting non‐attendees of the screening program could improve the effectiveness of cervical screening. In developed countries offering self‐sampling has shown to be superior to a recall invitation for cytology in re‐attracting original non‐attendees into the screening program. Additionally, self‐testing has shown to facilitate access to cervical screening for women in low resource areas. This updated review of the literature suggests that HPV self‐sampling could be an additional strategy that can improve screening performance compared to current cytology‐based call‐recall programs.     

高危型HPV阳性细胞学阴性维吾尔族妇女的分流管理

目的 统计≥30岁维吾尔族妇女不同型别人乳头瘤病毒(human papillomavivus,HPV)感染和宫颈细胞学检查结果,分析不同型别HPV感染发生高度宫颈病变(≥CIN2)的风险,为规范化管理未发生宫颈病变和HPV阳性的妇女提供理论依据.方法 收集2012-01-01-2014-02-28新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院妇产科不同型别HPV感染且宫颈细胞学检查未见异常的维吾尔族妇女199例,根据不同HPV型别进行分组,常规全部行阴道镜检查,行宫颈多点活检组织病理学检查,根据病检结果分析各个型别宫颈高度病变的患病率,运用Logistic回归分析不同型别HPV妇女发生高度宫颈病变的风险.结果 199例宫颈细胞学检查未见异常,但HPV分型检测15种高危型HPV阳性的维吾尔族妇女中感染位居前5位的为HPV16、58、52、53和31型.其中高度宫颈病变的患病率为18.59％(37/199),HPV阳性的各个型别中诊断≥CIN2级病变有HPV 16、58、52、31和18型,HPV16型阳性患者发生≥CIN2级病变的患病率为38.48％(20/58),HPV58型阳性的患病率为30.23％(13/43),HPV52型的患病率为5.90％(2/34),HPV31型阳性的患病率为3.70％(1/27),HPV18型阳性的患病率为11.11％(1/9).HPV16型感染发生≥CIN2级的危险是无HPV16型感染者的3.839倍,95％CI为1.829～8.060,P＜0.001;HPV58型感染发生≥CIN2级的危险是无HPV58型感染者的2.365倍,95％CI为1.476～7.669,P=0.004.结论 对于≥30岁维吾尔族妇女宫颈细胞学检查未见异常但高危型HPV阳性者尤其是HPV16和58型阳性者,发生宫颈高度病变的风险较高,应行阴道镜检查,必要时做活检.     

Comparative performance of novel self‐sampling methods in detecting high‐risk human papillomavirus in 30,130 women not attending cervical screening

We determined whether the participation rate for a brush‐based cervicovaginal self‐sampling device is noninferior to the participation rate for a lavage‐based one for testing for hrHPV (high‐risk human papillomavirus). Additionally, positivity rates for hrHPV, the detection rates for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 or worse (CIN2+/3+), and user comfort were compared. A total of 35,477 non‐responders of the regular cervical screening program aged 33–63 years were invited to participate. Eligible women (n = 30,130) were randomly assigned to receive either a brush‐based or a lavage‐based device, and a questionnaire for reporting user convenience. Self‐sampling responders testing hrHPV‐positive were invited for a physician‐taken sample for cytology; triage‐positive women were referred for colposcopy. A total of 5,218 women participated in the brush‐based sampling group (34.6%) and 4809 women in the lavage‐based group (31.9%), i.e. an absolute difference of 2.7% (95%CI 1.8–4.2). The hrHPV‐positivity rates in the two groups were identical (8.3%, relative risk (RR) 0.99, 95%CI 0.87–1.13). The detection of CIN2+ and CIN3+ in the brush group (2.0% for CIN2+; 1.3% for CIN3+) was similar to that in the lavage group (1.9% for CIN2+; 1.0% for CIN3+) with a cumulative RR of 1.01, 95%CI 0.83–1.24 for CIN2+ and 1.25, 95%CI 0.92–1.70 for CIN3+. The two self‐sampling devices performed similarly in user comfort. In conclusion, offering a brush‐based device to non‐responders is noninferior to offering a lavage‐based device in terms of participation. The two self‐sampling methods are equally effective in detecting hrHPV, CIN2+/CIN3+ and are both well accepted.     

Comparison of human papillomavirus genotyping and cytology triage,COMPACT Study: Design,methods and baseline results in 14 642 women

Although cytology‐based screening programs have significantly reduced mortality and morbidity from cervical cancer, the global consensus is that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical screening increases detection of high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and invasive cancer. However, the optimal triage strategy for HPV‐positive women to avoid over‐referral to colposcopy may be setting specific. As Japan requires data that have been generated domestically to modify screening guidelines, we conducted a 3‐year prospective study, COMparison of HPV genotyping And Cytology Triage (COMPACT), to evaluate the potential role of HPV16/18 partial genotyping and cytology for primary HPV screening. In total, 14 642 women aged 20 to 69 years undergoing routine screening at 3 centers in Hokkaido were enrolled. Conventional cytology and HPV testing were carried out. Women with abnormal cytology or HPV16/18 positivity underwent colposcopy. Those with 12 other high‐risk (hr) HPV types underwent repeat cytology after 6 months. Primary study endpoints were detection of high‐grade cervical disease defined as CIN2/CIN3 or greater as determined by consensus pathology. Prevalence of cytological abnormalities was 2.4%. hrHPV, HPV 16, and HPV 18 were detected in 4.6%, 0.9%, and 0.3% of women, respectively. HPV16/18 were detected in all (8/8) invasive cervical cancers and in all (2/2) adenocarcinomas in situ. Both cytological abnormalities and hrHPV positivity declined with increasing age. This is the first Japanese study to investigate the role of partial genotyping and cytology in an HPV‐based screening program. Results should help policy‐makers develop guidelines for future cervical screening programs and management of cervical abnormalities based on HPV genotype.     

Evaluation of 14 triage strategies for HPV DNA-positive women in population-based cervical screening

High-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing has a higher sensitivity but lower specificity than cytology for detection of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). To avoid over-referral to colposcopy and overtreatment, hrHPV-positive women require triage testing and/or followup. A total of 25,658 women (30-60 years) enrolled in a population-based cohort study had an adequate baseline Pap smear and hrHPV test. The end-point was cumulative two-year risk of CIN grade 3 or worse (CIN3+). In a post-hoc analysis, fourteen triage/followup strategies for hrHPV-positive women (n = 1,303) were evaluated for colposcopy referral rate, positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Five strategies involved triage testing without a repeat test and nine strategies involved triage testing followed by one repeat testing. The tests were cytology, hrHPV, HPV16/18 genotyping and HPV16/18/31/33/45 genotyping. Results were adjusted for women in the cohort study who did not attend repeat testing. Of the strategies without repeat testing, combined cytology and HPV16/18/31/33/45 genotyping gave the highest NPV of 98.9% (95%CI 97.6-99.5%). The corresponding colposcopy referral rate was 58.1% (95%CI 55.4-60.8%). Eight of the nine strategies with retesting had an estimated NPV of at least 98%. Of those, cytology triage followed by cytology at 12 months had a markedly lower colposcopy referral rate of 33.4% (95%CI 30.2-36.7%) than the other strategies. The NPV of the latter strategy was 99.3% (95%CI 98.1-99.8%). Triage hrHPV-positive women with cytology, followed by repeat cytology testing yielded a high NPV and modest colposcopy referral rate and appear to be the most feasible management strategy.     

Stratifying HPV‐positive women for CIN3+ risk after one and two rounds of HPV‐based screening

A main challenge of human papilloma (HPV)‐based screening for cervical cancer is to adequately identify HPV‐positive women at highest risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse, CIN3+. The prognostic value of currently used adjunct markers (HPV16/18 genotyping and reflex cytology) may change after multiple rounds of HPV‐based screening because of a change in the proportion of HPV‐positive women with incident infections. To this end, we re‐analyzed results from the POBASCAM trial (Population Based Screening Study Amsterdam). Women were randomized to HPV/cytology cotesting (intervention group) or to cytology‐only (HPV blinded; control group) at enrolment. Our analytical population consisted of women with an HPV‐positive result at the second round, 5 years after enrolment (n = 381 intervention, n = 392 control). Nine‐year CIN3+ risks were estimated by Kaplan–Meier. HPV‐positive women were stratified by risk markers: HPV16/18 genotyping, reflex cytology and preceding HPV results. When comparing one to two rounds of HPV‐based screening, the prognostic value of an abnormal cytology result did not change (40.0% vs. 42.3%, p = 0.5617), but diminished for an HPV16/18 positive result (25.4% vs. 38.0%, p = 0.0132). HPV16/18 genotyping was nondiscriminative in women with incident HPV infections (HPV16/18 positive 10.0% vs. negative 12.1%, p = 0.3193). Women from the intervention group were more likely to have incident infections compared to women from the control group (incident screen‐positive results 75.6% vs. 64.6%, p = 0.001) Our results indicate that at a second round of HPV‐based screening, risk differentiation by cytology remained strong, but was diminished for HPV 16/18 genotyping because of a larger proportion of incident infections.     

Human papillomavirus E7 protein detection as a method of triage to colposcopy of HPV positive women,in comparison to genotyping and cytology. Final results of the PIPAVIR study

The objective of the presented cross‐sectional‐evaluation‐screening study is the clinical evaluation of high‐risk(hr)HPVE7‐protein detection as a triage method to colposcopy for hrHPV‐positive women, using a newly developed sandwich‐ELISA‐assay. Between 2013‐2015, 2424 women, 30‐60 years old, were recruited at the Hippokratio Hospital, Thessaloniki/Greece and the Im Mare Klinikum, Kiel/Germany, and provided a cervical sample used for Liquid Based Cytology, HPV DNA genotyping, and E7 detection using five different E7‐assays: “recomWell HPV16/18/45KJhigh”, “recomWell HPV16/18/45KJlow”, “recomWell HPV39/51/56/59”, “recomWell HPV16/31/33/35/52/58” and “recomWell HPVHRscreen” (for 16,18,31,33,35,39,45,51,52,56,58,59 E7), corresponding to different combinations of hrHPVE7‐proteins. Among 1473 women with eligible samples, those positive for cytology (ASCUS+ 7.2%), and/or hrHPV DNA (19.1%) were referred for colposcopy. Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) was detected in 27 women (1.8%). For HPV16/18‐positive women with no triage, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV) and the number of colposcopies needed to detect one case of CIN2+ were 100.0%, 11.11% and 9.0 respectively. The respective values for E7‐testing as a triage method to colposcopy ranged from 75.0‐100.0%, 16.86‐26.08% and 3.83‐5.93. Sensitivity and PPV for cytology as triage for hrHPV(non16/18)‐positive women were 45.45% and 27.77%; for E7 test the respective values ranged from 72.72‐100.0% and 16.32‐25.0%. Triage of HPV 16/18‐positive women to colposcopy with the E7 test presents better performance than no triage, decreasing the number of colposcopies needed to detect one CIN2+. In addition, triage of hrHPV(non16/18)‐positive women with E7 test presents better sensitivity and slightly worse PPV than cytology, a fact that advocates for a full molecular screening approach.     

Comparison of HPV and cytology triage algorithms for women with borderline or mild dyskaryosis in population‐based cervical screening (VUSA‐screen study)

We studied the effectiveness of high‐risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) triage for immediate colposcopy in women with borderline or mild dyskaryosis (BMD). In the Utrecht province of the Netherlands, women aged 30–60 years who participated in the regular cervical screening programme were offered hrHPV testing and cytology (intervention group) or cytology only (control group). In the intervention group (n = 337), women with BMD were immediately referred for colposcopy only if the sample was hrHPV positive. Women with a hrHPV negative test were advised to repeat cytology at 6 and 18 months and were referred for colposcopy if and when the repeat test result was positive (BMD or worse). In the control group (n = 329), referral of women with BMD was delayed until cytology was repeatedly positive at 6 or 18 months. The CIN3 detection rates were 10.7% (36/337) in the intervention group and 6.4% (21/329) in the control group (p = 0.047). Moreover, hrHPV triaging resulted in shorter time to diagnosis (154 vs. 381 days). Although the number of colposcopy referrals was 51.5% higher in the intervention group than in the control group, the medical costs per detected CIN3 were slightly lower ([euro] 4781 vs. [euro] 6235). If, in addition, hrHPV negative women had been referred back to routine screening at baseline, the CIN3 rate would have been 10.1% (34/337) and colposcopy rate would only have been 30.4% higher than in the control group. This study shows that hrHPV triaging of women with BMD is at least as effective for detecting CIN3 as repeat cytology, also when hrHPV negative women are referred back to routine screening.     

Association of HPV16 E6 variants with diagnostic severity in cervical cytology samples of 354 women in a US population

It has been suggested that DNA sequence variants of HPV16 contribute to differences in the behavior of individual cervical lesions. To address this question, we have analyzed the association of HPV16 variants with diagnostic severity in 354 HPV16‐positive Oklahoman women. HPV16 variant status was determined by PCR amplification and DNA sequencing of the E6 open reading frame. European sequences were identified in 86% of samples and 14% were non‐European. Of the 51 non‐European cases, 61% were Asian‐American, 23% African and 16% were Native American variants. European prototype and related variants were present in comparable numbers (43% each) but the relative proportion of each differed with diagnostic category. In general, the proportion of European variants and non‐European variants increased with diagnostic severity while the European prototype decreased. When adjusted for age and race (white, black or Hispanic), the increased risk for carcinoma/severe dysplasia for non‐European variants was statistically significant with an odds ratio of 3.8 (1.3–10.7). However, the analogous comparison for the European variants, although also showing increased association with carcinoma/severe dysplasia, did not reach statistical significance (OR = 1.6 (95% CI 0.7–3.6). Overall, HPV16 European sequences (both prototype and related variants), were predominant in Oklahoman women including those with cancers. This suggests that while there appear to be differences among the HPV16‐variant categories in risk for progression to invasive cancer, all variant categories are associated with the development of invasive cancer. © 2009 UICC     

HPV基因亚型分布及其与CIN的相关性研究

[目的]探讨健康体检妇女HPV基因亚型分布状况,及HPV感染后宫颈上皮内瘤变的发生情况。[方法]2012年5月至2013年10月于深圳市妇幼保健院行健康体检HPV分型检测阳性的妇女,所有研究对象均进行宫颈HPV分型检测、阴道镜检查及宫颈组织活检。[结果]本研究共纳入妇女2578例,年龄18~70岁,病理结果为正常或炎症者1983例,CINⅠ为278例,CINⅡ/Ⅲ为308例,宫颈浸润癌9例。HPV基因亚型构成前5位高危型HPV为HPV52、43、16、58、56;CINⅠ中HPV基因亚型构成前5位依次为HPV52、16、58、56、43,CINⅡ/Ⅲ中HPV基因亚型构成前5位依次为HPV16、58、52、33、18;随着感染HPV亚型增多,CIN构成比升高,差异具有统计学意义（P〈0.01）;高度宫颈上皮内病变（CINⅡ/Ⅲ）以25~44岁年龄段相对多见。[结论]深圳市妇幼保健院健康体检妇女HPV基因亚型分布与其他地域存在差异。不同程度宫颈癌前病变HPV亚型分布可能存在差异,而HPV16、52、58在宫颈病变中均占有重要地位;HPV多重感染者,CIN风险明显增加;25~44岁有性生活妇女应为宫颈癌筛查的侧重点人群。