Human papillomavirus genotype distribution in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 and invasive cervical cancer in Japanese women

Comparison of methods using paraffin-embedded tissues and exfoliated cervical cells to evaluate human papillomavirus genotype attribution

Monitoring the attribution of human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes to cervical precancerous lesions is essential in assessing the efficacy of HPV vaccines. To resolve the lack of studies comparing the HPV genotyping procedures used to estimate HPV genotype attribution, we undertook a retrospective cross-sectional study to determine the appropriate genotyping procedures for evaluating the potential efficacy of HPV vaccines. Three procedures, including two different genotyping methods, Clinichip HPV test (C-Chip) and modified GP5+/6+ PCR coupled to fluorescent bead sorter detection (MGP), using exfoliated cervical cells (C-Chip and C-MGP, respectively) or formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues (F-MGP), were compared. The overall agreement in detecting high-risk HPV was 88.5-92.1% among the three procedures, and genotype-specific agreement was 83.9-100% for all pairwise comparisons. In cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 specimens, HPV16/18 attribution estimated with the hierarchical attribution method was consistent among the procedures: 52.3% (45/86) for C-Chip, 54.7% (47/86) for C-MGP, and 52.3% (45/86) for F-MGP (P = 0.81). HPV16/18/31/33/45/52/58 hierarchical attribution was 88.4% (76/86) with C-Chip, 86.0% (74/86) with C-MGP, and 83.7% (72/86) with F-MGP (P = 0.49). In cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 specimens, the corresponding hierarchical attribution was 96.4% (53/55) with C-Chip, 89.1% (49/55) with C-MGP, and 94.5% (52/55) with F-MGP (P = 0.27). Although F-MGP is theoretically a reliable method for determining HPV genotype attribution, it is acceptable to use C-Chip or C-MGP, coupled to the hierarchical attribution formula to correct the bias of multiple infections. These approaches using exfoliated cervical cells are practical for monitoring the efficacy of HPV vaccines.

Genotyping for Human Papillomavirus (HPV) 16/18/52/58 Has a Higher Performance than HPV16/18 Genotyping in Triaging Women with Positive High-risk HPV Test in Northern Thailand

Background

Testing for high-risk human papillomavirus DNA (HPV test) has gained increasing acceptance as an alternative method to cytology in cervical cancer screening. Compared to cytology, HPV test has a higher sensitivity for the detection of histologic high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or worse (HSIL+), but this could lead to a large colposcopy burden. Genotyping for HPV16/18 has been recommended in triaging HPV-positive women. This study was aimed to evaluate the screening performance of HPV testing and the role of genotyping triage in Northern Thailand.

Methods

A population-based cervical screening program was performed in Chiang Mai (Northern Thailand) using cytology (conventional Pap test) and HPV test (Hybrid Capture 2). Women who had abnormal cytology or were HPV-positive were referred for colposcopy. Cervical samples from these women were genotyped using the Linear Array assay.

Results

Of 5,456 women, 2.0% had abnormal Pap test results and 6.5% tested positive with Hybrid Capture 2. Of 5,433 women eligible for analysis, 355 with any positive test had histologic confirmation and 57 of these had histologic HSIL+. The sensitivity for histologic HSIL+ detection was 64.9% for Pap test and 100% for Hybrid Capture 2, but the ratio of colposcopy per detection of each HSIL+ was more than two-fold higher with Hybrid Capture 2 than Pap test (5.9 versus 2.8). Genotyping results were available in 316 samples. HPV52, HPV16, and HPV58 were the three most common genotypes among women with histologic HSIL+. Performance of genotyping triage using HPV16/18/52/58 was superior to that of HPV16/18, with a higher sensitivity (85.7% versus 28.6%) and negative predictive value (94.2% versus 83.9%).

Conclusions

In Northern Thailand, HPV testing with genotyping triage shows better screening performance than cervical cytology alone. In this region, the addition of genotyping for HPV52/58 to HPV16/18 is deemed necessary in triaging women with positive HPV test.

Prevalence of Human Papillomavirus Genotypes Among Women With High-Grade Cervical Lesions in Beijing, China

The aim of the study is to investigate the prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus (hr-HPV) genotypes among Han women with high-grade cervical lesions in Beijing, China.Cervical cell specimens from patients with histopathologically confirmed cervical lesions at 7 hospitals in Beijing were examined with a validated HPV kit for 13 hr-HPV genotypes during the study period. The patients were divided into a low-grade cervical lesions group (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1, CIN1) and a high-grade cervical lesions group (CIN2+, including cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2, CIN2; cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3, CIN3; squamous cervical cancer, SCC; and adenocarcinoma of the cervix, ACC) based on the histopathology results.A total of 2817 eligible patients were enrolled, including 610 cases identified as CIN1 and 2207 as CIN2+. The hr-HPV positive rates in the CIN1 and CIN2+ groups were 78.2% (477/610) and 93.3% (2060/2207), respectively. The most frequently detected genotypes were HPV16, 58, 52 and18 in the CIN1 group and HPV16, 58, 33, and 52 in the CIN2+ group, in descending order of prevalence. In addition, the prevalence of HPV18 among the patients with ACC was 28.6% (14/49), significantly >7.2% (54/752) prevalence among the SCC patients (P < 0.001). Additionally, significantly more women in the CIN2+ group had multiple infections compared with those in the CIN1 group (38.1% and 24.9%, respectively; P < 0.001). However, as the cervical lesion grade increased, the prevalence of multiple hr-HPV infections gradually deceased to 44.2% in the CIN2 patients, 36.7% in the CIN3 patients, and 35.3% in the cervical cancer (CC) patients, which included SCC and ACC patients. In cases of multiple hr-HPV infections in the CIN2+ group, double infections accounted for ∼76.6%, and HPV16+58, HPV16+52, and HPV16+18 were the most common combinations, in descending order. The most frequent combination for triple infections was HPV16+58+31, with a rate of 4.2%. The highest positive rate occurred in the ≤24 year-old group for all types of cervical lesions.The prevalence of HPV genotypes in the targeted population with high-grade cervical lesions differs from that of other countries. This information could be helpful for the prevention of CC in Beijing, China.

Carcinogenic ability quantification of human papilloma virus subtypes in eastern China

Human papilloma virus (HPV) infection is a precursor of cervical cancer. This study aimed to introduce a method to quantify the risk of cervical cancer resulting from infection by different HPV subtypes, to help guide patient treatment. Nucleic acid molecule flow-through hybridization and gene chip technology were used to test 6,510 non-cervical cancer healthy volunteers (≤CIN-I) and 204 cervical cancer patients (≥CIN-III) from Dongying City for 21 HPV subtypes (HPV-16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 68, 6, 11, 42, 43, 44, 53, 66 and CP8304) in exfoliated cervical cells. The positive proportion of HPV subtypes was calculated, excluding or including patients with multiple subtype infections. The lower (L) and upper (H) limits of the carcinogenic risk score range were calculated, respectively. The values of carcinogenic index ± uncertainty in the carcinogenic ability (CI ± U) were also calculated. CI = (H + L)/2 represents the carcinogenic risk of the different subtypes, and U =(H - L)/2 represents the probability of each subtype being present in multiple infections. Infection rates were 15.87 and 96.57%, and HPV subtypes with high infection rates were HPV-16, 52, 58, 33, 18, and 31 and HPV-16, 31, 58, 18, 68, and 33 in the non-cervical cancer and cervical cancer groups, respectively. HPV subtypes with high risk of cervical cancer were HPV-31 (3.71 ± 0.68), 51 (2.65 ± 0.44), 18 (2.03 ± 0.43), 68 (1.76 ± 0.40), 58 (1.68 ± 0.49), and 16 (1.39 ± 0.33). We have provided a quantitative method for expressing HPV subtype carcinogenic risk.