4.5 Article

Human papillomavirus genotype-specific risks for cervical intraepithelial lesions

期刊

HUMAN VACCINES & IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 972-981

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2020.1814097

关键词

Denmark; high-risk HPV; Iceland; liquid-based cytology; low-risk HPV; Norway; population-based prevalence; Sweden

资金

  1. Merck Sharp Dohme Corp. [NCT01077856]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prevalence of different HPV genotypes is changing after HPV vaccination. Results suggest that HPV screening tests in the post-vaccination era might perform better if restricted to the HPV types in the nonavalent vaccine.
Prevalence of different HPV genotypes is changing after HPV vaccination. The associated risks are needed for optimizing cervical cancer screening. To estimate HPV type-specific prevalence, odds ratio (OR), and positive predictive value (PPV) for cervical cytological abnormalities, we determined 41 different HPV genotypes in cervical samples from a population-based sample of 8351 women aged 18-51 years before HPV vaccination era (V501-033; NCT01077856). Prevalence of HPV16 was 4.9% (95% CI: 4.4-5.5) with the PPV for high-grade cytology 11.2%, and OR 11.9 (95% CI: 8.5-16.5). Carcinogenic HPVs included in the nonavalent vaccine (HPV16,18,31,33,45,52,58) had a population prevalence of 14.4% (95% CI: 13.5-15.4), with PPV of 8.0% (95% CI: 6.8-9.3) and OR 23.7 (95% CI: 16.0-63.5) for high-grade cytology. HPV types currently included in most screening tests, but not vaccinated against (HPV35,39,51,56,59,66,68) had a joint prevalence of 8.5% (95% CI: 7.8-9.2) with PPV of 4.4% (95% CI: 3.3-5.7) and OR of 2.9 (95% CI: 2.0-4.0) for high-grade cytology. The other 27 non-carcinogenic genotypes had a prevalence of 11.8%, PPV of 2.9% (95% CI:2.1-3.9), and OR 1.5 (95% CI: 1.1-2.2.) for high-grade cytology. These results suggest that HPV screening tests in the post-vaccination era might perform better if restricted to the HPV types in the nonavalent vaccine and screening for all 14 HPV types might result in suboptimal balance of harms and benefits.

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

4.5
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