OBJECTIVES: To describe prevalence and estimated attribution of human papillomavirus (HPV) types in U.S. cervical, vaginal, and vulvar precancers and cancers. METHODS: U.S. studies reporting HPV typing for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN), and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VaIN) and/or invasive cancers of those sites were gathered from the PubMed database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/). Selected studies had PCR testing data for > or =10 cases for a disease endpoint. Analytic methods augmented prior reviews of cervical disease with an updated and expanded analysis (including vulvar and vaginal disease), new selection criteria for specimens, and adjustment for histologic type, where possible, among pooled cancer cases. In addition, for analyses of estimated attribution of HPV types, we incorporated accounting methods for lesions infected with multiple HPV types. RESULTS: Data from 22 U.S. studies meeting review eligibility criteria were tabulated. Following adjustment for the presence of multiple HPV types in a single specimen, the top two HPV types contributing to disease were CIN 1 (HPV 16/66; 15.3%), CIN 2/3 (HPV 16/31; 61.9%), cervical cancer (HPV 16/18; 79.2%), VIN 1 (HPV 6/11; 41.7%), VIN 3 (HPV 16/18; 84.0%), vulvar cancer (HPV 16/33; 55.5%), VaIN 3 (HPV 16/18; 65.1%), and vaginal cancer (HPV 16/18; 72.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The HPV type distribution and proportion of cases testing positive for any HPV type were observed to vary among U.S. cervical, vulvar, and vaginal neoplasias and by grade of disease. Adjustment for the presence of multitype HPV infections can have an important effect on the estimated attribution of HPV types to disease, particularly for types other than HPV 16.
OBJECTIVES: To describe prevalence and estimated attribution of human papillomavirus (HPV) types in U.S. cervical, vaginal, and vulvar precancers and cancers. METHODS: U.S. studies reporting HPV typing for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN), and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia (VaIN) and/or invasive cancers of those sites were gathered from the PubMed database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/). Selected studies had PCR testing data for > or =10 cases for a disease endpoint. Analytic methods augmented prior reviews of cervical disease with an updated and expanded analysis (including vulvar and vaginal disease), new selection criteria for specimens, and adjustment for histologic type, where possible, among pooled cancer cases. In addition, for analyses of estimated attribution of HPV types, we incorporated accounting methods for lesions infected with multiple HPV types. RESULTS: Data from 22 U.S. studies meeting review eligibility criteria were tabulated. Following adjustment for the presence of multiple HPV types in a single specimen, the top two HPV types contributing to disease were CIN 1 (HPV 16/66; 15.3%), CIN 2/3 (HPV 16/31; 61.9%), cervical cancer (HPV 16/18; 79.2%), VIN 1 (HPV 6/11; 41.7%), VIN 3 (HPV 16/18; 84.0%), vulvar cancer (HPV 16/33; 55.5%), VaIN 3 (HPV 16/18; 65.1%), and vaginal cancer (HPV 16/18; 72.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The HPV type distribution and proportion of cases testing positive for any HPV type were observed to vary among U.S. cervical, vulvar, and vaginal neoplasias and by grade of disease. Adjustment for the presence of multitype HPV infections can have an important effect on the estimated attribution of HPV types to disease, particularly for types other than HPV 16.
Authors: R L M Bekkers; W J G Melchers; J Bulten; H Boonstra; W G V Quint; A G J M Hanselaar; L F A G Massuger Journal: Eur J Gynaecol Oncol Date: 2002 Impact factor: 0.196
Authors: A M Sebbelov; M Davidson; S Krüger Kjaer; H Jensen; L Gregoire; I Hawkins; A J Parkinson; B Norrild Journal: Microbes Infect Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 2.700
Authors: Janet R Daling; Margaret M Madeleine; Stephen M Schwartz; Katherine A Shera; Joseph J Carter; Barbara McKnight; Peggy L Porter; Denise A Galloway; James K McDougall; Hisham Tamimi Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: S M Schwartz; J R Daling; K A Shera; M M Madeleine; B McKnight; D A Galloway; P L Porter; J K McDougall Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J J Carter; M M Madeleine; K Shera; S M Schwartz; K L Cushing-Haugen; G C Wipf; P Porter; J R Daling; J K McDougall; D A Galloway Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2001-03-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Shalini L Kulasingam; James P Hughes; Nancy B Kiviat; Constance Mao; Noel S Weiss; Jane M Kuypers; Laura A Koutsky Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-10-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nancy E Joste; Brigitte M Ronnett; William C Hunt; Amanda Pearse; Erika Langsfeld; Thomas Leete; MaryAnn Jaramillo; Mark H Stoler; Philip E Castle; Cosette M Wheeler Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-11-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Linda M Niccolai; Pamela J Julian; Alyssa Bilinski; Niti R Mehta; James I Meek; Daniel Zelterman; James L Hadler; Lynn Sosa Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Michelle J Khan; L Stewart Massad; Walter Kinney; Michael A Gold; E J Mayeaux; Teresa M Darragh; Philip E Castle; David Chelmow; Herschel W Lawson; Warner K Huh Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: H G Schnürch; S Ackermann; C D Alt; J Barinoff; C Böing; C Dannecker; F Gieseking; A Günthert; P Hantschmann; L C Horn; R Kürzl; P Mallmann; S Marnitz; G Mehlhorn; C C Hack; M C Koch; U Torsten; W Weikel; L Wölber; M Hampl Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Dana Whittemore; Lili Ding; Lea E Widdice; Darron A Brown; David I Bernstein; Eduardo L Franco; Jessica A Kahn Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: José V Fernandes; Rosely V Meissner; Maria Gf Carvalho; Thales Aam Fernandes; Paulo Rm Azevedo; João S Sobrinho; José Cm Prado; Luisa L Villa Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2010-04-08