OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective study was to analyze whether integration or high viral loads of human papillomavirus (HPV) is essential for malignant transformation of HPV types 52 and 58 as well as types 16 and 18. METHODS: Cervical swabs from 178 consecutive patients, including 81 with invasive cervical cancers and 97 with cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN) II-III, were collected and examined to determine the physical status and viral load of HPV types 16, 18, 52 and 58 DNA using genechip and real-time PCR (polymerase chain reaction) analysis. RESULTS: In cervical cancer patients, the integrated form of HPV 52 and 58 DNA was found in 25.0% and 12.5% of swabs, respectively; while HPV16 and 18 DNA was found in 82.6% and 100% of swabs, respectively (P < 0.01, for pair-wise comparison of types 16, 18 versus types 52, 58). The viral loads reflected by the amount of E6 for HPV 16, 18, or 52 were significantly increased in invasive cervical cancer compared to CINII-III (P = 0.022 for type 16, P = 0.003 for type18, and P = 0.001 for type 52, respectively). Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for cervical cancer versus CIN II-III was 73.8%, 92.9%, and 88.5% for HPV 16, 18, and 52, respectively, indicating that real-time PCR had good diagnostic value in differentiating cervical cancer from CIN II-III. CONCLUSIONS: Infrequent integration of HPV 52 and 58 DNA in cervical cancer suggests that it is not prerequisite for progression to cervical cancer. High viral loads (E6) of HPV 16, 18, and 52 DNA may be predictive of the transition of CIN II-III to cervical cancer. Our results indicate that both viral DNA physical status and viral loads of HPV are important factors in the carcinogenesis of different HPV types.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective study was to analyze whether integration or high viral loads of human papillomavirus (HPV) is essential for malignant transformation of HPV types 52 and 58 as well as types 16 and 18. METHODS: Cervical swabs from 178 consecutive patients, including 81 with invasive cervical cancers and 97 with cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN) II-III, were collected and examined to determine the physical status and viral load of HPV types 16, 18, 52 and 58 DNA using genechip and real-time PCR (polymerase chain reaction) analysis. RESULTS: In cervical cancerpatients, the integrated form of HPV 52 and 58 DNA was found in 25.0% and 12.5% of swabs, respectively; while HPV16 and 18 DNA was found in 82.6% and 100% of swabs, respectively (P < 0.01, for pair-wise comparison of types 16, 18 versus types 52, 58). The viral loads reflected by the amount of E6 for HPV 16, 18, or 52 were significantly increased in invasive cervical cancer compared to CINII-III (P = 0.022 for type 16, P = 0.003 for type18, and P = 0.001 for type 52, respectively). Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for cervical cancer versus CIN II-III was 73.8%, 92.9%, and 88.5% for HPV 16, 18, and 52, respectively, indicating that real-time PCR had good diagnostic value in differentiating cervical cancer from CIN II-III. CONCLUSIONS: Infrequent integration of HPV 52 and 58 DNA in cervical cancer suggests that it is not prerequisite for progression to cervical cancer. High viral loads (E6) of HPV 16, 18, and 52 DNA may be predictive of the transition of CIN II-III to cervical cancer. Our results indicate that both viral DNA physical status and viral loads of HPV are important factors in the carcinogenesis of different HPV types.
Authors: J R Montealegre; E C Peckham-Gregory; D Marquez-Do; L Dillon; M Guillaud; K Adler-Storthz; M Follen; M E Scheurer Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Tasneem Shikary; David I Bernstein; Yan Jin; Gregory D Zimet; Susan L Rosenthal; Jessica A Kahn Journal: J Clin Virol Date: 2009-08-08 Impact factor: 3.168
Authors: Long Fu Xi; Laura A Koutsky; Philip E Castle; Cosette M Wheeler; Denise A Galloway; Constance Mao; Jesse Ho; Nancy B Kiviat Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-01-27 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Rachel L Winer; Tiffany G Harris; Long Fu Xi; Kathrin U Jansen; James P Hughes; Qinghua Feng; Carolee Welebob; Jesse Ho; Shu-Kuang Lee; Joseph J Carter; Denise A Galloway; Nancy B Kiviat; Laura A Koutsky Journal: J Med Virol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 2.327
Authors: Long Fu Xi; Nancy B Kiviat; Denise A Galloway; Xiao-Hua Zhou; Jesse Ho; Laura A Koutsky Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Chuqing Zhang; Jong-Sup Park; Magdalena Grce; Samantha Hibbitts; Joel M Palefsky; Ryo Konno; Karen K Smith-McCune; Lucia Giovannelli; Tang-Yuan Chu; María Alejandra Picconi; Patricia Piña-Sánchez; Wannapa Settheetham-Ishida; Francois Coutlée; Federico De Marco; Yin-Ling Woo; Wendy C S Ho; Martin C S Wong; Mike Z Chirenje; Tsitsi Magure; Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Ivan Sabol; Alison N Fiander; Zigui Chen; Martin C W Chan; Tak-Hong Cheung; Robert D Burk; Paul K S Chan Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2014-05-30 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Jo L K Cheung; Tak-Hong Cheung; Candy W Y Ng; Mei Y Yu; Martin C S Wong; Shing-Shun N Siu; So-Fan Yim; Paul K S Chan Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2008-11-26 Impact factor: 5.948