4.6 Article

HPV-18 is a poor prognostic factor, unlike the HPV viral load, in patients with stage IB-IIA cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 121, 期 3, 页码 546-550

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.01.015

关键词

Human papillomavirus; Viral load; Genotype; Cervical cancer; FIGO stage IB-IIA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. This study was conducted to determine the prognostic significance of the human papillomavirus (HPV) genotype using the HPV DNA chip (HDC) test and the HPV viral load by the hybrid capture II assay (HC2) in FIGO stage IB-IIA cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy. Methods. Between January 2001 and December 2005, 204 consecutive patients who underwent radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IB1-IIA cervical cancer were retrospectively reviewed. The Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for covariates were used for analyses and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the HPV viral load in predicting disease progression. Results. Of the 204 cases, the HDC was positive in 195 (95.6%) and the HC2 was positive in 192 (94.1%). The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 78.4%. On multivariate analysis. HPV-18 positivity was an independent prognostic factor predictive for disease progression. The risk of recurrence was higher for HPV-18 positivity (hazard ratio = 2.664: 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.437-4.938; P = 0.003). The 5-year PFS rate for patients who were HPV-18-negative was 83.8%, which was higher than the 5-year PFS for patients who were HPV-18-positive (54.1%; P<0.001). The area under the ROC curve for the HPV viral load was 0.550 (P = 0.314:95% CI, 0.455-0.644). Conclusions. The HPV-18 genotype is a reliable prognostic factor of early-stage cervical cancer; however, the HPV viral load may not be helpful in predicting disease prognosis. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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