OBJECTIVE: Cross-sectional analyses of our 10,000-woman, population-based Guanacaste cohort suggest a lag of > or =10 years between the peak of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and the later peak of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN 3). We wanted to explore early HPV natural history and CIN 3 prospectively. STUDY DESIGN: As part of the Guanacaste cohort, we followed 206 initially virginal women aged 18 to 26 semiannually for a median of 3.6 years after initiation of sexual life. RESULTS: A total of 53.4% of women tested positive during the study for > or =1 HPV type. Very few infections persisted for >1 to 2 years. Three women had histologically confirmed CIN 3, of which 2 showed persistent HPV 16. The other had serologic evidence of HPV 31. CONCLUSIONS: HPV infection occurs frequently and clears rapidly in most young women initiating sexual intercourse. Persistent HPV 16 can cause early CIN 3. The peak age for CIN 3 will decline with the increased screening intensity and sensitivity typical of longitudinal studies.
OBJECTIVE: Cross-sectional analyses of our 10,000-woman, population-based Guanacaste cohort suggest a lag of > or =10 years between the peak of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and the later peak of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN 3). We wanted to explore early HPV natural history and CIN 3 prospectively. STUDY DESIGN: As part of the Guanacaste cohort, we followed 206 initially virginal women aged 18 to 26 semiannually for a median of 3.6 years after initiation of sexual life. RESULTS: A total of 53.4% of women tested positive during the study for > or =1 HPV type. Very few infections persisted for >1 to 2 years. Three women had histologically confirmed CIN 3, of which 2 showed persistent HPV 16. The other had serologic evidence of HPV 31. CONCLUSIONS:HPV infection occurs frequently and clears rapidly in most young women initiating sexual intercourse. Persistent HPV 16 can cause early CIN 3. The peak age for CIN 3 will decline with the increased screening intensity and sensitivity typical of longitudinal studies.
Authors: Ana Cecilia Rodríguez; Alfonso J García-Piñeres; Allan Hildesheim; Rolando Herrero; Matthew Trivett; Marcus Williams; Ivannia Atmella; Margarita Ramírez; Maricela Villegas; Mark Schiffman; Robert Burk; Enrique Freer; José Bonilla; Concepción Bratti; Ligia A Pinto Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Ana Cecilia Rodríguez; Mark Schiffman; Rolando Herrero; Allan Hildesheim; Concepción Bratti; Mark E Sherman; Diane Solomon; Diego Guillén; Mario Alfaro; Jorge Morales; Martha Hutchinson; Li Cheung; Sholom Wacholder; Robert D Burk Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Anne F Rositch; Anne E Burke; Raphael P Viscidi; Michelle I Silver; Kathryn Chang; Patti E Gravitt Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2012-09-27 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Ana Cecilia Rodríguez; Mark Schiffman; Rolando Herrero; Allan Hildesheim; Concepción Bratti; Mark E Sherman; Diane Solomon; Diego Guillén; Mario Alfaro; Jorge Morales; Martha Hutchinson; Hormuzd Katki; Li Cheung; Sholom Wacholder; Robert D Burk Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-02-15 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Anne F Rositch; Jill Koshiol; Michael G Hudgens; Hilda Razzaghi; Danielle M Backes; Jeanne M Pimenta; Eduardo L Franco; Charles Poole; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Lei Zhang; Hong Liao; Binlie Yang; Christopher P Geffre; Ai Zhang; Aizhi Zhou; Huimin Cao; Jieru Wang; Zhenbo Zhang; Wenxin Zheng Journal: Int J Clin Exp Pathol Date: 2015-07-01