OBJECTIVES: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN) associated with high-risk (HR) human papillomavirus infection, in addition to HR-HPV typing need other viral marker testing to distinguish a subset of lesions with clinical relevant infections. This study has evaluated the significance of viral markers, such as viral load, physical status and E2/E6 ratio, to stratify HPV16 infected women at a single point in time for grade of cervical lesions. METHODS: One hundred sixty-six cytological specimens were selected from women with low (n=72) and high (n=94) grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (SIL), and positive to HPV16. All the 72 LSIL were CINI, 83 of the 94 HSIL were CINII/III and 11 SCC (Squamous Cervical Carcinoma). Cytological specimens were analysed by two different SYBR Green Real-time PCR assays (RT-PCR). Specific primers for both E2 and E6 viral genes and GAPDH cellular gene were designed to determine viral load, physical status and E2/E6 ratio. RESULTS: The viral load was significantly higher in HSIL than in LSIL. In CINI episomal DNA was prevalent (72.2%), mixed forms (episomal and integrated) were 27.8%, suggestive of an early integration of viral DNA into cellular genome, no pure integrated forms were detected. However in CINII/III mixed DNA forms were prevalent (73.5%). In SCC pure integrated DNA was prevalent (81.8%) in absence of episomal forms. E2/E6 ratio decreased significantly from CINI to CINII/III and SCC with a linear trend. The logistic regression analysis showed that viral load higher than 1.38x10(6) genome copies per 300 ng of total DNA associated with E2/E6 ratio lower than 0.90 was highly significant in differentiating CINII/III versus CINI, while the only E2/E6 value lower than 0.17 was significant in differentiating SCC from CINI. CONCLUSIONS: Viral load higher than 1.38x10(6) genome copies per 300 ng of total DNA and E2/E6 ratio values allow HPV16 infected women with high grade cervical intraepithelial lesions to be recognized.
OBJECTIVES: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasias (CIN) associated with high-risk (HR) human papillomavirus infection, in addition to HR-HPV typing need other viral marker testing to distinguish a subset of lesions with clinical relevant infections. This study has evaluated the significance of viral markers, such as viral load, physical status and E2/E6 ratio, to stratify HPV16 infected women at a single point in time for grade of cervical lesions. METHODS: One hundred sixty-six cytological specimens were selected from women with low (n=72) and high (n=94) grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (SIL), and positive to HPV16. All the 72 LSIL were CINI, 83 of the 94 HSIL were CINII/III and 11 SCC (Squamous Cervical Carcinoma). Cytological specimens were analysed by two different SYBR Green Real-time PCR assays (RT-PCR). Specific primers for both E2 and E6 viral genes and GAPDH cellular gene were designed to determine viral load, physical status and E2/E6 ratio. RESULTS: The viral load was significantly higher in HSIL than in LSIL. In CINI episomal DNA was prevalent (72.2%), mixed forms (episomal and integrated) were 27.8%, suggestive of an early integration of viral DNA into cellular genome, no pure integrated forms were detected. However in CINII/III mixed DNA forms were prevalent (73.5%). In SCC pure integrated DNA was prevalent (81.8%) in absence of episomal forms. E2/E6 ratio decreased significantly from CINI to CINII/III and SCC with a linear trend. The logistic regression analysis showed that viral load higher than 1.38x10(6) genome copies per 300 ng of total DNA associated with E2/E6 ratio lower than 0.90 was highly significant in differentiating CINII/III versus CINI, while the only E2/E6 value lower than 0.17 was significant in differentiating SCC from CINI. CONCLUSIONS: Viral load higher than 1.38x10(6) genome copies per 300 ng of total DNA and E2/E6 ratio values allow HPV16 infected women with high grade cervical intraepithelial lesions to be recognized.
Authors: Anna Manawapat-Klopfer; Lisa Wang; Juliane Haedicke-Jarboui; Frank Stubenrauch; Christian Munk; Louise T Thomsen; Peter Martus; Susanne K Kjaer; Thomas Iftner Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Anna Manawapat; Frank Stubenrauch; Rainer Russ; Christian Munk; Susanne Kruger Kjaer; Thomas Iftner Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2012-02-15 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Wendy Theelen; Ernst-Jan M Speel; Michael Herfs; Martin Reijans; Guus Simons; Els V Meulemans; Marcella M Baldewijns; Frans C S Ramaekers; Joan Somja; Philippe Delvenne; Anton H N Hopman Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2010-09-02 Impact factor: 4.307
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: Lisa Mirabello; Mark Schiffman; Arpita Ghosh; Ana C Rodriguez; Natasa Vasiljevic; Nicolas Wentzensen; Rolando Herrero; Allan Hildesheim; Sholom Wacholder; Dorota Scibior-Bentkowska; Robert D Burk; Attila T Lorincz Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2012-08-20 Impact factor: 7.396
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