4.7 Article

Typing of Human Papillomavirus in Women With Cervical Lesions: Prevalence and Distribution of Different Genotypes

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY
Volume 81, Issue 2, Pages 271-277

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.21382

Keywords

HPV; genotyping; cervical lesion; HPV types prevalence

Categories

Funding

  1. Roche Diagnostics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Human papillomavirus (HPV) are distributed widely and persistent infection with high-risk (HR) HPV is recognized as a necessary cause of cervical cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the distribution of different HR-HPV genotypes in 199 women with cervical pre-invasive lesions undergoing conservative treatment. A Linear Array HPV Genotyping Test was used to identify individual HPV genotypes in cervical samples. It was observed that the most prevalent HPV genotypes were HPV 16 (52.6%), HPV 51 (13.5%), and HPV 31 (10.9%); HPV 18 was found in 7.3% of the patients. Stratifying the different HPV genotypes according to the severity of the cervical lesion, a strong association between the increasing severity of the histological diagnosis and the detection of more carcinogenic HR-HPV type was found, and in all but one cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 3 the presence of at least one HR-HPV could be detected, with more than 70% of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 3 patients bearing HPV 16. Multiple infections, comprising between 2 and 6 HPV types, were found in 43% of patients; however, the presence of more than 1 HR-HPV type was not associated with an increased risk of high grade lesions. In conclusion, this data show that HPV 16, 51, 31, 52, and 18 were the prevalent types found in patients with cervical lesion undergoing conservative treatment, with a high prevalence of HPV 16 in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 3 patients. No association between multiple infection and severity of the lesion could be found.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available