4.3 Article

Comparison of HPV genotypes and viral load between different sites of genital tract: The significance for cervical cancer screening

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 2, Pages 168-173

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2014.01.004

Keywords

Human papillomavirus; Genotype; Viral load; Intraepithelial neoplasia; Genital tract

Funding

  1. Merck Sharp
  2. Dohme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To compare the consistency of HPV genotype and viral loads among different sites within the female genital tract, and to correlate these with clinical outcomes. Methods: 2646 previously unscreened rural women were enrolled in this population-based, cross-sectional study between May 2006 and April 2007. Physician-collected samples from lower vagina, upper vagina, cervix, and one self-collected sample were taken from each woman. Viral load was assessed by HC2 using the relative light unit/cutoff ratio (RLU/CO), and HPV genotyping was tested by Linear Array. Results: The low risk HPV positive rate was highest in lower vagina samples and lowest in cervix samples. Overall kappa values of high risk HPV types between various anatomic sampling sites showed substantial or almost perfect agreement among women with normal pathology, CIN1, and CIN2+. In the CIN2+ population, high risk HPV viral load for cervix samples (557.25 RLU/CO) were much higher than upper vagina samples (96.43 RLU/CO, P < 0.001), lower vagina samples (36.51 RLU/CO, P < 0.001), and self-collected (206.83 RLU/CO, P = 0.003) samples. Conclusions: Although the distribution of high risk HPV genotypes was fairly equivalent across different genital sites, particularly for CIN2+ lesions, viral loads were largely variable. The findings may affect the cervical cancer screening methods using self-collected samples, particularly in resource-challenged areas. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available