OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes on the sensitivity of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) for screening, and colposcopy for diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or more severe (CIN2+). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women aged 25 to 65 years from China (n = 7,541) were screened with 6 tests (careHPV and Hybrid Capture 2 on self- and clinician-collected specimens; HPV-16, HPV-18, HPV-45 E6 detection; and VIA). Biopsies from women with a diagnosis of CIN2+ underwent testing for 25 HPV genotypes using SPF10/LiPA. Human papillomavirus genotyping results were classified according to broad categories of cancer risk. RESULTS: Among the 143 women with a diagnosis of CIN2+, the percentage who were HPV16 positive increased with increasing severity of diagnosis: 33.3% for CIN2 (n = 39), 69.1% for CIN3 (n = 94), and 90% for cancer (n = 10). There was a higher percentage of HPV-16 in women with abnormal colposcopic impression (p = .007) and positive VIA (p = .02) than normal colposcopy and negative VIA, respectively. Colposcopy and VIA were more sensitive to detect CIN2+ among HPV-16- and/or HPV-18-positive women than HPV-16-/HPV-18-negative women (67.4% vs 43.1%, p = .008, for colposcopy; and 53.3% vs 37.3%, p = .08, for VIA). CONCLUSIONS: Human papillomavirus type 16 is related to more clear visual acetowhite changes in the epithelium. Therefore, we should expect a reduction of the performance of VIA for cervical cancer screening to identify women with CIN2+, and reduction of the performance of colposcopy to diagnose CIN2+, in vaccinated populations.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes on the sensitivity of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) for screening, and colposcopy for diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or more severe (CIN2+). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Women aged 25 to 65 years from China (n = 7,541) were screened with 6 tests (careHPV and Hybrid Capture 2 on self- and clinician-collected specimens; HPV-16, HPV-18, HPV-45 E6 detection; and VIA). Biopsies from women with a diagnosis of CIN2+ underwent testing for 25 HPV genotypes using SPF10/LiPA. Human papillomavirus genotyping results were classified according to broad categories of cancer risk. RESULTS: Among the 143 women with a diagnosis of CIN2+, the percentage who were HPV16 positive increased with increasing severity of diagnosis: 33.3% for CIN2 (n = 39), 69.1% for CIN3 (n = 94), and 90% for cancer (n = 10). There was a higher percentage of HPV-16 in women with abnormal colposcopic impression (p = .007) and positive VIA (p = .02) than normal colposcopy and negative VIA, respectively. Colposcopy and VIA were more sensitive to detect CIN2+ among HPV-16- and/or HPV-18-positive women than HPV-16-/HPV-18-negative women (67.4% vs 43.1%, p = .008, for colposcopy; and 53.3% vs 37.3%, p = .08, for VIA). CONCLUSIONS:Human papillomavirus type 16 is related to more clear visual acetowhite changes in the epithelium. Therefore, we should expect a reduction of the performance of VIA for cervical cancer screening to identify women with CIN2+, and reduction of the performance of colposcopy to diagnose CIN2+, in vaccinated populations.
Authors: Philip E Castle; John E Varallo; Margaret Mary Bertram; Bakgaki Ratshaa; Moses Kitheka; Kereng Rammipi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 3.240