4.6 Article

Cigarette smoking, oncogenic human papillomavirus, Ki-67 antigen, and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 159, 期 9, 页码 834-842

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwh115

关键词

case-control studies; cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; cervix uteri; female; Ki-67 antigen; papillomavirus, human; smoking; tobacco smoke pollution

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA34493] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although cigarette smoking has been identified as a cofactor for cervical neoplasia, it is not clear whether smoking exerts an early or late effect on the evolution of human papillomavirus (HPV)-related lesions. A case-control study of Washington State women who presented for routine gynecologic care from 1997 to 2001 was conducted. All women underwent cytologic testing and HPV DNA screening. Those with abnormal cytology findings or a positive oncogenic HPV test and a random sample of women negative on both tests were referred for colposcopically directed cervical biopsy with repeated testing. Among 461 women with oncogenic HPV were 181 controls with negative histology, 137 cases with histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 1 (CIN1), and 143 cases with histologically confirmed CIN grades 2-3 or higher (greater than or equal toCIN2-3). Smoking information was obtained by questionnaire. Immunohistochemistry testing for Ki-67 was performed on a subset of biopsy specimens (n=139). Smoking 10 or more cigarettes per day was associated with greater than or equal toCIN2-3 (adjusted odds ratio=2.6, 95% confidence interval: 1.3, 5.5) and CIN1 (adjusted odds ratio=2.5, 95% confidence interval: 1.2, 5.3). Heavy smoking was positively associated with Ki-67 but not with repeated detection of oncogenic HPV. Since smoking was associated with both CIN1 and greater than or equal toCIN2-3, cigarette by-products may affect the early evolution of HPV-related lesions, possibly by increasing the rate of cell turnover.

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

4.6
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