4.7 Article

Dynamics of human papillomavirus infection between biopsy and excision of cervical Intraepithelial neoplasia: Results from the ZYC101a protocol

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 189, 期 8, 页码 1348-1354

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/382956

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Little is known about the dynamics of human papillomavirus (HPV) during the follow-up of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2/3 after biopsy. Methods. A total of 127 women with biopsy-confirmed CIN2/3 were enrolled in a phase 2 double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of ZYC101a. Colposcopic, cytologic, and HPV testing were performed over the course of 6 months, before a loop electrical surgical excision procedure was performed at study exit. Results. Of the women tested, 99% were found to be HPV positive at study entry, 50% were found to be HPV type 16 positive at study entry, 22% were found to be positive for multiple HPV types at study entry, and 37% were found to be positive for additional HPV types during follow-up. Of those with a histologic outcome of CIN1 at study exit, 78% were found to be positive for additional HPV types; in 39%, the original type was replaced with a new HPV type. Virus load at study entry did not predict outcome, but pre-study-exit virus load correlated with a histologic outcome of any CIN, and changes in virus load correlated with risk for an outcome of CIN2/3 at study exit. Conclusions. The type and number of HPVs at study entry, detection of additional viral types, and virus load changes during follow-up influence histologic outcome at study exit. An outcome of CIN1 at study exit is most likely due to additional HPV infections, rather than morphologic reversion of CIN2/3 to CIN1. Knowledge of the dynamics of HPV infection during the biopsy-to-excision period is critical to understanding the natural history of HPV infection, its contribution to disease outcome, and interpretations of drug efficacy.

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