Detection of human papillomavirus by nonradioactive hybridization

Correlation of human papillomavirus and adeno-associated virus 2 infection in cytology with Korean women

The purpose of our prospective study was to investigate the prevalence of adeno-associated virus (AAV) and human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and/or HPV 18 infection in Korean women with normal cervical smears and those with HPV-associated cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cancer in cytobrush samples, and to evaluate the correlation between AAV 2 and HPV 16 and/or HPV 18 infection. AAV 2 was detected in CIN I (9.7%), CIN II (20%), CIN III (22.8%), and cancer (10%). HPV 16 was detected in CIN I (42%), CIN II (55%), CIN III (54.3%), and cancer (70%). HPV 18 was detected in CIN I (51.6%), CIN II (50%), CIN III (62.8%), and cancer (43.3%). HPV 16 or HPV 18 was detected in CIN I (18.3%), CIN II (80%), CIN III (71.4%), and cancer (80%). In normal and HPV-infected group, AAV 2 DNA was detected in 16.3% and 4.4% of samples, respectively. HPV 16 was detected in 10.2% of normal patients and in 44.4% of HPV-infected patients, and HPV 18 was detected in 12.2% of normal patients and in 40% of HPV-infected patients. HPV 16 or HPV 18 was detected in 18.3% of normal patients and in 57.7% of HPV infection. The correlation between AAV 2 and HPV 16 was statistically significant in normal and CIN I/II group only, and AAV 2 and HPV 16 and/or HPV 18 showed no correlation. Therefore, the correlation between AAV and HPV were not statistically significant. These data support the previous reports that AAV might not be associated with cervical tumorigenesis.

Evaluation of adenoassociated virus 2 and human papilloma virus 16 and 18 infection in cervical cancer biopsies

OBJECTIVE

Protective roles of adenoassociated virus (AAV) 2 in cervical tumorigenesis are controversial. In an effort to clarify this issue, we tested prevalence of AAV 2 and human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in cervical lesions and adjacent normal tissues.

METHODS

Tissues of cervical intraepithelial neoplasm (CIN) I (20 patients), CIN II (24 patients), CIN III (25 patients), and invasive cancer (23 patients) were investigated by microdissection and PCR using HPV-16-, HVP-18-, and AAV-2-specific primers.

RESULTS

AAV 2 was detected in 11 out of 20 CIN I (55%), 21 out of 24 CIN II (84.5%), 13 out of 25 CIN III (52%), and 12 out of 23 invasive cancer cases (52.2%). However, HPV 16 was detected in none out of 20 CIN I, 2 out of 24 CIN II (8.3%), 6 out of 25 CIN III (24%), and 6 out of 23 invasive cancer cases (26.1%). HPV 18 was detected in 1 case in CIN II (4.2%) and 2 cases in CIN III (8%). In 92 perilesional normal tissues, AAV 2 was detected in 53 cases (57.6%), displaying 25% of CIN I, 83.3% of CIN II, 52% of CIN III, and 65.2% of invasive cancer.

CONCLUSION

The differences in AAV 2 prevalence are not significant between CIN and normal tissues. However, differences in HPV 16 are significant in CIN III and invasive cancer, as compared to CIN I, CIN II, and normal, suggesting no significant correlation between AAV 2 and cervical cancer. Thus, these results support the notion that AAV 2 is not associated with cervical tumorigenesis.

Human papillomavirus 16 and 18 infection of the uterine cervix in women with different grades of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the frequency of human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and 18 infection in patients with different grades of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN).

METHOD

Five-hundred and five patients with CIN, referred for conization, were included in this study. Before conization, cytological material for in situ hybridization was obtained from the uterine cervix to detect the presence of HPV 16 and 18 infection.

RESULT

Among all patients with CIN, 82 (16.2%) were solely HPV 16 and 51 (10.1%) were solely HPV 18 positive. There were 133 patients (26.3%) positive for HPV 16 or HPV 18 and 31 patients (6.1%) were positive for both viral types, giving an overall HPV 16/18 infection rate of 32.4%. There were 15 (55.5%) HPV 16 or HPV 18 positive patients with CIN 1, 45 (33.8%) HPV 16 or HPV 18 positive patients with CIN 2 and 104 (30.2%) HPV 16 or HPV 18 positive patients with CIN 3.

CONCLUSION

In patients with CIN 1, HPV 16 and 18 infection was more frequent than in patients with CIN 2, but the difference was not significant. Patients with CIN 2 were infected slightly more frequently, but not significantly, than patients with CIN 3. On the other hand, patients with CIN 1 were significantly more frequently infected than patients with CIN 3.