Joseph Monsonego1, J Thomas Cox2, Catherine Behrens3, Maria Sandri4, Eduardo L Franco5, Poh-Sin Yap3, Warner Huh6. 1. Institut du Col, Paris, France. Electronic address: jmonsonego@wanadoo.fr. 2. University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA. 3. Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA, USA. 4. European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. 5. Division of Cancer Epidemiology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 6. University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the age-related prevalence of high risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) genotypes and the genotype-associated risk for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) in a large U.S. screening population. METHODS: A total of 40,901 women aged ≥25 years were screened with liquid-based cytology and HPV testing in the ATHENA (Addressing the Need for Advanced HPV Diagnostics) trial. Genotyping was performed using the LINEAR ARRAY HPV Genotyping Test. RESULTS: HPV16 was the most prevalent genotype in all age groups, ranging from 3.5% to 0.8% in women aged 25-29 and ≥50 years, respectively. The next most prevalent genotypes were HPV52, HPV31 and HPV18. In the overall population, HPV16 conferred the greatest absolute risk of ≥CIN3 both in women aged 25-29 and ≥30 years (14.2% and 15.1%, respectively) followed by HPV31 (8.0% and 7.9%), HPV52 (6.7% and 4.4%) and HPV18 (2.7% and 9.0%). Similar trends were seen in women with negative cytology. The percent positivity increased markedly with disease progression for HPV16 and HPV18 which were responsible for 45.6% and 8.4% of ≥CIN3, respectively. Of note, HPV 18 was responsible for 50% of adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and 50% of invasive cancer cases. CONCLUSIONS: HPV16 played a major role in the development of ≥CIN3 irrespective of age, supporting the identification of HPV16 in primary screening for all women. Identification of HPV18 is also warranted, given its significant contribution to AIS and cancer. Identification of non-16/18 genotypes as a pool should provide sufficient information for screening.
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the age-related prevalence of high risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) genotypes and the genotype-associated risk for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) in a large U.S. screening population. METHODS: A total of 40,901 women aged ≥25 years were screened with liquid-based cytology and HPV testing in the ATHENA (Addressing the Need for Advanced HPV Diagnostics) trial. Genotyping was performed using the LINEAR ARRAY HPV Genotyping Test. RESULTS:HPV16 was the most prevalent genotype in all age groups, ranging from 3.5% to 0.8% in women aged 25-29 and ≥50 years, respectively. The next most prevalent genotypes were HPV52, HPV31 and HPV18. In the overall population, HPV16 conferred the greatest absolute risk of ≥CIN3 both in women aged 25-29 and ≥30 years (14.2% and 15.1%, respectively) followed by HPV31 (8.0% and 7.9%), HPV52 (6.7% and 4.4%) and HPV18 (2.7% and 9.0%). Similar trends were seen in women with negative cytology. The percent positivity increased markedly with disease progression for HPV16 and HPV18 which were responsible for 45.6% and 8.4% of ≥CIN3, respectively. Of note, HPV 18 was responsible for 50% of adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and 50% of invasive cancer cases. CONCLUSIONS:HPV16 played a major role in the development of ≥CIN3 irrespective of age, supporting the identification of HPV16 in primary screening for all women. Identification of HPV18 is also warranted, given its significant contribution to AIS and cancer. Identification of non-16/18 genotypes as a pool should provide sufficient information for screening.
Authors: Oscar G W Wong; Idy F Y Ng; Obe K L Tsun; Herbert H Pang; Philip P C Ip; Annie N Y Cheung Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2019-11-22 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Ryan C V Lintao; Leslie Faye T Cando; Glenmarie Angelica S Perias; Ourlad Alzeus G Tantengco; Ian Kim B Tabios; Clarissa L Velayo; Sheriah Laine M de Paz-Silava Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-06-20
Authors: André Lp de Abreu; Natália Malaguti; Raquel P Souza; Nelson S Uchimura; Érika C Ferreira; Monalisa W Pereira; Maria Db Carvalho; Sandra M Pelloso; Marcelo G Bonini; Fabrícia Gimenes; Marcia El Consolaro Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Nicholas P Ambulos; Lisa M Schumaker; Trevor J Mathias; Ruth White; Jennifer Troyer; David Wells; Kevin J Cullen Journal: J Biomol Tech Date: 2016-03-07
Authors: Ran C Zhang; Nujsaubnusi C Vue; Lisa U Obasi; Rachel I Vogel; Amar T Subramanian; Mahmoud A Khalifa; Buvana R Reddy; Britt K Erickson Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 3.842
Authors: Ina Marie Angèle Traore; Théodora Mahoukèdè Zohoncon; Adama Dembele; Florencia W Djigma; Dorcas Obiri-Yeboah; Germain Traore; Moussa Bambara; Charlemagne Ouedraogo; Yves Traore; Jacques Simpore Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-07-20 Impact factor: 3.411