4.7 Article

Cervical adenocarcinoma in situ: Human papillomavirus types and incidence trends in five states, 2008-2015

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 146, 期 3, 页码 810-818

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.32340

关键词

HPV; adenocarcinoma in situ; AIS; cervical cancer; cervical intraepithelial lesions

类别

资金

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [U50CK000482, U50CK000484, U50CK000486, U50CK000488, U50CK000491]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Primary prevention through the use of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is expected to impact both cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS). While CIN is well described, less is known about the epidemiology of AIS, a rare cervical precancer. We identified AIS and CIN grade 3 (CIN3) cases through population-based surveillance, and analyzed data on HPV types and incidence trends overall, and among women screened for cervical cancer. From 2008 to 2015, 470 AIS and 6,587 CIN3 cases were identified. The median age of women with AIS was older than those with CIN3 (35 vs. 31 years; p < 0.01). HPV16 was the most frequently detected type in both AIS and CIN3 (57% in AIS; 58% in CIN3), whereas HPV18 was the second most common type in AIS and less common in CIN3 (38% vs. 5%; p < 0.01). AIS lesions were more likely than CIN3 lesions to be positive for high-risk types targeted by the bivalent and quadrivalent vaccines (HPV16/18, 92% vs. 63%; p < 0.01), and 9-valent vaccine (HPV16/18/31/33/45/52/58, 95% vs. 87%; p < 0.01). AIS incidence rates decreased significantly in the 21-24 year age group (annual percent change [APC] overall: -22.1%, 95% CI: -33.9 to -8.2; APC among screened: -16.1%, 95% CI: -28.8 to -1.2), but did not decrease significantly in any older age group. This report on the largest number of genotyped AIS cases to date suggests an important opportunity for vaccine prevention of AIS, and is the first to document a decline in AIS incidence rates among young women during the vaccine era.

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