American journal of clinical pathology · 2017
Polymerase Chain Reaction Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Detection and HPV Genotyping in Invasive Cervical Cancers With Prior Negative HC2 Test Results.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tao Xiang, Zheng Baowen, Yin Fufen, Zeng Zhengyu, Li Zaibo, Griffith Christopher C, Luo Bing, Ding Xiangdong, Zhou Xianrong, Zhao Chengquan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Recently, three large Chinese cohort studies showed that 7.5% to 15.5% of patients with cervical carcinoma had negative high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) test results on prior cytology specimens. These studies raise the question as to whether these negative hrHPV results represent truly hrHPV-negative carcinomas or false-negative hrHPV test results due to limitations in the testing of cytology specimens. This is increasingly an important question with increasing push to use hrHPV testing alone to screen for cervical cancer.
METHODS: We investigated the hrHPV status on the surgical specimens from these same patients with cervical carcinoma using three polymerase chain reaction methods and a linear assay genotyping method.
RESULTS: A variety of HPV genotypes were detected in 28 (45.9%) of 61 cases, all belonging to carcinogenic or possibly carcinogenic categories. HPV 16 was the most common genotype detected in positive cases (66.7%). HPV was detected in 25 (50%) of 50 squamous cell carcinomas and two (66.7%) of three adenosquamous carcinomas and only one (12.5%) of eight endocervical adenocarcinomas.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that negative hrHPV testing on cervicovaginal cytology specimens in women later diagnosed with cervical carcinoma can be explained by the occurrence of truly HPV-negative carcinomas in more than half of patients. These results should be considered in the development of future cervical cancer screening guidelines.
METHODS: We investigated the hrHPV status on the surgical specimens from these same patients with cervical carcinoma using three polymerase chain reaction methods and a linear assay genotyping method.
RESULTS: A variety of HPV genotypes were detected in 28 (45.9%) of 61 cases, all belonging to carcinogenic or possibly carcinogenic categories. HPV 16 was the most common genotype detected in positive cases (66.7%). HPV was detected in 25 (50%) of 50 squamous cell carcinomas and two (66.7%) of three adenosquamous carcinomas and only one (12.5%) of eight endocervical adenocarcinomas.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that negative hrHPV testing on cervicovaginal cytology specimens in women later diagnosed with cervical carcinoma can be explained by the occurrence of truly HPV-negative carcinomas in more than half of patients. These results should be considered in the development of future cervical cancer screening guidelines.