Cancer epidemiology · 2014
Comparison of HPV genotypes and viral load between different sites of genital tract: the significance for cervical cancer screening.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Zhang Shao-Kai, Ci Pu-Wa, Velicer Christine, Kang Le-Ni, Liu Bin, Cui Jian-Feng, Chen Feng, Zhang Xun, Chang Irene J, Roberts Christine C, Smith Jennifer S, Chen Wen, Qiao You-Lin
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare the consistency of HPV genotype and viral loads among different sites within the female genital tract, and to correlate these with clinical outcomes.
METHODS: 2646 previously unscreened rural women were enrolled in this population-based, cross-sectional study between May 2006 and April 2007. Physician-collected samples from lower vagina, upper vagina, cervix, and one self-collected sample were taken from each woman. Viral load was assessed by HC2 using the relative light unit/cutoff ratio (RLU/CO), and HPV genotyping was tested by Linear Array.
RESULTS: The low risk HPV positive rate was highest in lower vagina samples and lowest in cervix samples. Overall kappa values of high risk HPV types between various anatomic sampling sites showed substantial or almost perfect agreement among women with normal pathology, CIN1, and CIN2+. In the CIN2+ population, high risk HPV viral load for cervix samples (557.25 RLU/CO) were much higher than upper vagina samples (96.43 RLU/CO, P<0.001), lower vagina samples (36.51 RLU/CO, P<0.001), and self-collected (206.83RLU/CO, P=0.003) samples.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the distribution of high risk HPV genotypes was fairly equivalent across different genital sites, particularly for CIN2+ lesions, viral loads were largely variable. The findings may affect the cervical cancer screening methods using self-collected samples, particularly in resource-challenged areas.
METHODS: 2646 previously unscreened rural women were enrolled in this population-based, cross-sectional study between May 2006 and April 2007. Physician-collected samples from lower vagina, upper vagina, cervix, and one self-collected sample were taken from each woman. Viral load was assessed by HC2 using the relative light unit/cutoff ratio (RLU/CO), and HPV genotyping was tested by Linear Array.
RESULTS: The low risk HPV positive rate was highest in lower vagina samples and lowest in cervix samples. Overall kappa values of high risk HPV types between various anatomic sampling sites showed substantial or almost perfect agreement among women with normal pathology, CIN1, and CIN2+. In the CIN2+ population, high risk HPV viral load for cervix samples (557.25 RLU/CO) were much higher than upper vagina samples (96.43 RLU/CO, P<0.001), lower vagina samples (36.51 RLU/CO, P<0.001), and self-collected (206.83RLU/CO, P=0.003) samples.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the distribution of high risk HPV genotypes was fairly equivalent across different genital sites, particularly for CIN2+ lesions, viral loads were largely variable. The findings may affect the cervical cancer screening methods using self-collected samples, particularly in resource-challenged areas.