4.7 Article

hrHPV prevalence and type distribution in rural Zimbabwe: A community-based self-collection study using near-point-of-care GeneXpert HPV testing

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2019.02.022

关键词

Human Papillomavirus; Cervical cancer screening; Self-collection

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health Fogarty Global Health Equity Fellowship training grant [TW0009338 R25]
  2. Stanford Pathology Department Mentored Trainee Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: High-risk human papilloma viruses (hrHPV) are the causative agents of cervical cancer, the leading cause of cancer deaths among Zimbabwean women. The objective of this study was to describe the hrHPV types found in Zimbabwe for consideration in cervical cancer screening and vaccination efforts. Design and methods: To determine hrHPV prevalence and type distribution in Zimbabwe we implemented a community-based cross-sectional study of self-collected cervicovaginal samples with hrHPV screening using near-point-of-care Cepheid GeneXpert HPV. Results: The hrHPV prevalence was 17% (112/643); 33% (41/123) vs. 14% (71/520) among HIV-1-positive and -negative participants, respectively (p = 2.3E-07). Typing via Xpert HPV showed very good overall agreement (77.2%, kappa = 0.698) with the Seegene Anyplex II HPV HR Detection kit. The most common types were HPV16, HPV18, HPV35, HPV52, HPV58, HPV68, HPV18, and HPV51, each of which appeared in 14-20% of infections. 37% (28/76) of women with positive cytology results (ASCUS+) had a type not included in the basic vaccine and 25% (19/76) had a type not currently in the nine-valent vaccine. Conclusions: hrHPV type distribution includes less common high-risk types in rural Zimbabwe. The distribution and carcinogenicity of hrHPV type distribution should be considered during screening assay design, program development, as well as vaccine distribution and design. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据