Susanne K Kjær1, Kirsten Frederiksen, Christian Munk, Thomas Iftner. 1. Department of Viruses, Hormones and Cancer, Institute of Cancer Epidemiology, Danish Cancer Society, Strandboulevarden 49, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. susanne@cancer.dk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is the main cause of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cancer. It has been suggested that information about high-risk HPV type-specific infection might make cervical cancer screening more effective. Persistent HPV infection could also be a useful screening marker. We estimated the long-term risk of high-grade CIN after one-time detection of high-risk HPV DNA and after persistent infection with individual high-risk HPV types. METHODS: A cohort of 8656 women from the general population of Denmark was examined twice, 2 years apart (first study examination: May 15, 1991, to January 31, 1993; second study examination: October 1, 1993, to January 31, 1995). The women underwent a gynecological examination and cervical cytology and had swabs taken for HPV DNA analysis by the Hybrid Capture 2 and line probe assays. The women were followed up through the nationwide Danish Pathology Data Bank for cervical neoplasia for up to 13.4 years. The absolute risk of developing cervical lesions before a given time was estimated as a function of time. RESULTS: For women with normal cytological findings who were concurrently HPV16 DNA positive at the second examination, the estimated probability of developing CIN grade 3 (CIN3) or worse within 12 years of follow-up was 26.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 21.1% to 31.8%). The corresponding risks among those infected with HPV18 was 19.1% (95% CI = 10.4% to 27.3%), with HPV31 was 14.3% (95% CI = 9.1% to 19.4%), and with HPV33 was 14.9% (95% CI = 7.9% to 21.1%). The absolute risk of CIN3 or worse after infection with high-risk HPV types other than HPV16, HPV18, HPV31, or HPV33 was 6.0% (95% CI = 3.8% to 8.3%). The estimated absolute risk for CIN3 or cancer within 12 years of the second examination among women who were HPV16 DNA positive at both examinations was 47.4% (95% CI = 34.9% to 57.5%); by contrast, the risk of CIN3 or worse following a negative Hybrid Capture 2 test was 3.0% (95% CI = 2.5% to 3.5%). CONCLUSION: HPV16, HPV18, HPV31, and HPV33 infection and especially HPV16 persistence were associated with high absolute risks for progression to high-grade cervical lesions. The results indicate the potential value of genotyping in cervical cancer screening. Given that HPV DNA-negative women retained their low risk of CIN3 or worse for many years, frequent screening of these women may be unnecessary.
BACKGROUND: Infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) is the main cause of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cancer. It has been suggested that information about high-risk HPV type-specific infection might make cervical cancer screening more effective. Persistent HPV infection could also be a useful screening marker. We estimated the long-term risk of high-grade CIN after one-time detection of high-risk HPV DNA and after persistent infection with individual high-risk HPV types. METHODS: A cohort of 8656 women from the general population of Denmark was examined twice, 2 years apart (first study examination: May 15, 1991, to January 31, 1993; second study examination: October 1, 1993, to January 31, 1995). The women underwent a gynecological examination and cervical cytology and had swabs taken for HPV DNA analysis by the Hybrid Capture 2 and line probe assays. The women were followed up through the nationwide Danish Pathology Data Bank for cervical neoplasia for up to 13.4 years. The absolute risk of developing cervical lesions before a given time was estimated as a function of time. RESULTS: For women with normal cytological findings who were concurrently HPV16 DNA positive at the second examination, the estimated probability of developing CIN grade 3 (CIN3) or worse within 12 years of follow-up was 26.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 21.1% to 31.8%). The corresponding risks among those infected with HPV18 was 19.1% (95% CI = 10.4% to 27.3%), with HPV31 was 14.3% (95% CI = 9.1% to 19.4%), and with HPV33 was 14.9% (95% CI = 7.9% to 21.1%). The absolute risk of CIN3 or worse after infection with high-risk HPV types other than HPV16, HPV18, HPV31, or HPV33 was 6.0% (95% CI = 3.8% to 8.3%). The estimated absolute risk for CIN3 or cancer within 12 years of the second examination among women who were HPV16 DNA positive at both examinations was 47.4% (95% CI = 34.9% to 57.5%); by contrast, the risk of CIN3 or worse following a negative Hybrid Capture 2 test was 3.0% (95% CI = 2.5% to 3.5%). CONCLUSION:HPV16, HPV18, HPV31, and HPV33 infection and especially HPV16 persistence were associated with high absolute risks for progression to high-grade cervical lesions. The results indicate the potential value of genotyping in cervical cancer screening. Given that HPV DNA-negative women retained their low risk of CIN3 or worse for many years, frequent screening of these women may be unnecessary.
Authors: Susanne Kjaer; Estrid Høgdall; Kirsten Frederiksen; Christian Munk; Adriaan van den Brule; Edith Svare; Chris Meijer; Attilla Lorincz; Thomas Iftner Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-10-23 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Johannes Berkhof; Nicole W J Bulkmans; Maaike C G Bleeker; Saskia Bulk; Peter J F Snijders; Feja J Voorhorst; Chris J L M Meijer Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Rachel L Winer; Nancy B Kiviat; James P Hughes; Diane E Adam; Shu-Kuang Lee; Jane M Kuypers; Laura A Koutsky Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2005-01-21 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Mark Schiffman; Rolando Herrero; Rob Desalle; Allan Hildesheim; Sholom Wacholder; Ana Cecilia Rodriguez; Maria C Bratti; Mark E Sherman; Jorge Morales; Diego Guillen; Mario Alfaro; Martha Hutchinson; Thomas C Wright; Diane Solomon; Zigui Chen; John Schussler; Philip E Castle; Robert D Burk Journal: Virology Date: 2005-06-20 Impact factor: 3.616
Authors: Margaret R E McCredie; Katrina J Sharples; Charlotte Paul; Judith Baranyai; Gabriele Medley; Ronald W Jones; David C G Skegg Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-04-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Jill Koshiol; Lisa Lindsay; Jeanne M Pimenta; Charles Poole; David Jenkins; Jennifer S Smith Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Philip E Castle; Ana Cecilia Rodríguez; Robert D Burk; Rolando Herrero; Sholom Wacholder; Mario Alfaro; Jorge Morales; Diego Guillen; Mark E Sherman; Diane Solomon; Mark Schiffman Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-07-28
Authors: Long Fu Xi; Mark Schiffman; Laura A Koutsky; Zhonghu He; Rachel L Winer; Ayaka Hulbert; Shu-Kuang Lee; Yang Ke; Nancy B Kiviat Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Denise M Schütze; Peter J F Snijders; Leontien Bosch; Duco Kramer; Chris J L M Meijer; Renske D M Steenbergen Journal: J Virol Date: 2013-11-20 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: F Bottari; M Sideri; C Gulmini; S Igidbashian; A Tricca; C Casadio; S Carinelli; S Boveri; D Ejegod; J Bonde; M T Sandri Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Van K Morris; Asif Rashid; Miguel Rodriguez-Bigas; Prajnan Das; George Chang; Aki Ohinata; Jane Rogers; Christopher Crane; Robert A Wolff; Cathy Eng Journal: Oncologist Date: 2015-09-17
Authors: Mark Schiffman; Kai Yu; Rosemary Zuna; S Terence Dunn; Han Zhang; Joan Walker; Michael Gold; Noorie Hyun; Greg Rydzak; Hormuzd A Katki; Nicolas Wentzensen Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 7.396