Dataset Information

Can human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping classify non-16/18 high-risk HPV infection by risk stratification?

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Infection with high-risk genotypes of human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) is the major cause of invasive cervical cancers. HPV-16 and HPV-18 are known to be responsible for two-thirds of all invasive cervical carcinomas, followed by HPV-45, -31, and -33. Current guidelines only differentiate HPV-16/18 (+) by recommending direct colposcopy for treatment. We tried to evaluate whether there are differences in risk among 12 non-16/18 HR-HPV genotypes in this study.

Methods

The pathology archive database records of 1,102 consecutive gynecologic patients, who had results for cervical cytology and histology and for HPV testing, as determined by HPV 9G DNA chip, were reviewed.

Results

Among the 1,102 patients, 346 were non-16/18 HR-HPV (+) and 231 were HPV-16/18 (+). We calculated the odds ratios for ≥cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 (CIN 2) of 14 groups of each HR-HPV genotype compared with a group of HR-HPV (-) patients. Based on the odds ratio of each genotype, we divided patients with non-16/18 HR-HPV genotypes (+) into two groups: HPV-31/33/35/45/52/58 (+) and HPV-39/51/56/59/66/68 (+). The age-adjusted odds ratios for ≥CIN 2 of the HPV-31/33/35/45/52/58 (+) and HPV-39/51/56/59/66/68 (+) groups compared with a HR-HPV (-) group were 11.9 (95% CI, 7.6 to 18.8; p<0.001) and 2.4 (95% CI, 1.4 to 4.3; p<0.001), respectively, while that of the HPV-16/18 (+) group was 18.1 (95% CI, 11.6 to 28.3; p=0.003).

Conclusion

The 12 non-16/18 HR-HPV genotypes can be further categorized (HPV-31/33/35/45/52/58 vs. HPV-39/51/56/59/66/68) by risk stratification. The HPV-31/33/35/45/52/58 genotypes might need more aggressive action. Large scale clinical trials or cohort studies are necessary to confirm our suggestion.

SUBMITTER: Sung YE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5078819 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Can human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping classify non-16/18 high-risk HPV infection by risk stratification?

Sung Yeoun Eun YE Ki Eun Young EY Lee Youn Soo YS Hur Soo Young SY Lee Ahwon A Park Jong Sup JS

Journal of gynecologic oncology 20160701 6

<h4>Objective</h4>Infection with high-risk genotypes of human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) is the major cause of invasive cervical cancers. HPV-16 and HPV-18 are known to be responsible for two-thirds of all invasive cervical carcinomas, followed by HPV-45, -31, and -33. Current guidelines only differentiate HPV-16/18 (+) by recommending direct colposcopy for treatment. We tried to evaluate whether there are differences in risk among 12 non-16/18 HR-HPV genotypes in this study.<h4>Methods</h4>The pat ...[more]

PMID: 27550402

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTesting for high-risk human papillomavirus DNA (HPV test) has gained increasing acceptance as an alternative method to cytology in cervical cancer screening. Compared to cytology, HPV test has a higher sensitivity for the detection of histologic high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse (HSIL+), but this could lead to a large colposcopy burden. Genotyping for HPV16/18 has been recommended in triaging HPV-positive women. This study was aimed to evaluate the screening performance of HPV testing and the role of genotyping triage in Northern Thailand.MethodsA population-based cervical screening program was performed in Chiang Mai (Northern Thailand) using cytology (conventional Pap test) and HPV test (Hybrid Capture 2). Women who had abnormal cytology or were HPV-positive were referred for colposcopy. Cervical samples from these women were genotyped using the Linear Array assay.ResultsOf 5,456 women, 2.0% had abnormal Pap test results and 6.5% tested positive with Hybrid Capture 2. Of 5,433 women eligible for analysis, 355 with any positive test had histologic confirmation and 57 of these had histologic HSIL+. The sensitivity for histologic HSIL+ detection was 64.9% for Pap test and 100% for Hybrid Capture 2, but the ratio of colposcopy per detection of each HSIL+ was more than two-fold higher with Hybrid Capture 2 than Pap test (5.9 versus 2.8). Genotyping results were available in 316 samples. HPV52, HPV16, and HPV58 were the three most common genotypes among women with histologic HSIL+. Performance of genotyping triage using HPV16/18/52/58 was superior to that of HPV16/18, with a higher sensitivity (85.7% versus 28.6%) and negative predictive value (94.2% versus 83.9%).ConclusionsIn Northern Thailand, HPV testing with genotyping triage shows better screening performance than cervical cytology alone. In this region, the addition of genotyping for HPV52/58 to HPV16/18 is deemed necessary in triaging women with positive HPV test.

Project description:ImportanceTriage tests enhance the efficiency cervical cancer screening based on human papillomavirus (HPV), but the best approach for maximizing programmatic effectiveness is still uncertain, particularly in a real-world scenario.ObjectiveTo compare the clinical performance of 6 triage strategies based on liquid-based cytology (LBC) and HPV-16 and HPV-18 genotyping individually or in combination as sequential triage tests to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or higher among women with high-risk HPV.Design, setting, and participantsThis diagnostic study of routine cervical cancer screening was conducted at 100 primary health centers in Tlaxcala, Mexico. Women aged 30 to 64 years were recruited from August 1, 2013, to February 24, 2016, as part of the Forwarding Research for Improved Detection and Access for Cervical Cancer Screening and Triage study. Six triage scenarios for referral to colposcopy were examined: (1) LBC testing that found atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or worse, (2) positive results in HPV-16 genotyping, (3) positive results in HPV-18 genotyping, (4) positive results in HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping, (5) positive results in HPV-16 genotyping or, if genotyping results were negative, reflex LBC testing that found ASC-US or worse, and (6) positive results in HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping or, if genotyping results were negative, reflex LBC testing that found ASC-US or worse. Data were analyzed from October 2017 to August 2018.ExposuresLiquid-based cytological testing with simultaneous HPV-16 and HPV-18 genotyping. Women whose HPV genotyping results were positive for HPV-16 or HPV-18 or whose LBC results found ASC-US or worse and a random set of negative and normal results were referred to colposcopy with histologic analysis used for disease confirmation.Main outcomes and measuresClinical performance of each test strategy for detection of CIN grade 2 or higher. Secondary outcomes included resource utilization of each triage scenario, measured by the number of tests performed, the referral rate for colposcopy, and the numbers of colposcopies per CIN grade 2 or higher detected.ResultsA total of 36 212 women (median [interquartile range] age, 40 [35-47] years) were screened, and 4051 women (11.2%) had high-risk HPV. Of these women, 1109 (24.6%) were found to have HPV-16, HPV-18, or ASC-US or worse. Further histologic testing detected CIN grade 2 or higher in 110 of 788 women (14.0%) who underwent follow-up colposcopy. Sensitivity and specificity for 3 main triage strategies were 42.9% and 74.0% for LBC; 58.3% and 54.4% for HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping; and 86.6% and 34.0% for HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping with reflex LBC. The referral rate to colposcopy was 29% for HPV-16/HPV-18 with reflex LBC, which was 2-fold higher than the referral rate of 12% for LBC.Conclusions and relevanceTriage of women with high-risk HPV with HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping with reflex LBC was significantly associated with improvement in detection of CIN grade 2 or higher compared with LBC alone. The benefit of disease prevented may outweigh the cost of increasing requirements for colposcopy services in settings with limited adherence to follow-up after a positive screening result.

Project description:BackgroundHigh-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2/3 lesions in human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive women <30 years of age have high spontaneous regression rates. To reduce overtreatment, biomarkers are needed to delineate advanced CIN lesions that require treatment. We analyzed the FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation test and HPV16/18 genotyping in HPV-positive women aged <30 years, aiming to identify CIN2/3 lesions in need of treatment.MethodsA European multicenter retrospective study was designed evaluating the FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation test and HPV16/18 genotyping in cervical scrapes of 1061 HPV-positive women aged 15-29 years (690 ≤CIN1, 166 CIN2, and 205 CIN3+). A subset of 62 CIN2 and 103 CIN3 were immunohistochemically characterized by HPV E4 expression, a marker for a productive HPV infection, and p16ink4a and Ki-67, markers indicative for a transforming infection. CIN2/3 lesions with low HPV E4 expression and high p16ink4a/Ki-67 expression were considered as nonproductive, transforming CIN, compatible with advanced CIN2/3 lesions in need of treatment.ResultsFAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation positivity increased significantly with CIN grade and age groups (<25, 25-29, and ≥30 years), while HPV16/18 positivity was comparable across age groups. FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation positivity was HPV type independent. Methylation-positive CIN2/3 lesions had higher p16ink4a/Ki-67-immunoscores (P = .003) and expressed less HPV E4 (P = .033) compared with methylation-negative CIN2/3 lesions. These differences in HPV E4 and p16ink4a/Ki-67 expression were not found between HPV16/18-positive and non-16/18 HPV-positive lesions.ConclusionsCompared with HPV16/18 genotyping, the FAM19A4/miR124-2 methylation test detects nonproductive, transforming CIN2/3 lesions with high specificity in women aged <30 years, providing clinicians supportive information about the need for treatment of CIN2/3 in young HPV-positive women.

Dataset Information

Can human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping classify non-16/18 high-risk HPV infection by risk stratification?

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Can human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping classify non-16/18 high-risk HPV infection by risk stratification?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets