scholarly journals Prevalence of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Genotypes and Multiple Infections in Routine Cervical Cancer Screening in a Spanish Regional Population

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Toro de Morelva Mendez
2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gustavo David García Muentes ◽  
Lindsay Karen García Rodríguez ◽  
Ramiro Israel Burgos Galarraga ◽  
Franklin Almeida Carpio ◽  
Juan Carlos Ruiz Cabezas

ABSTRACT: Introduction: Human papillomavirus (HPV) is considered a necessary causative agent for developing oropharyngeal, anal and cervical cancer. Among women in Ecuadorian population, cervical cancer ranks as the second most common gynecological cancer. Not many studies about HPV burden have been published in Ecuador, and genotypes distribution has not been established yet. The little data available suggest the presence of other genotypes different than 16 and 18. Objectives: In the present study, we attempt to estimate the prevalence of HPV 16, HPV 18 and other 35 genotypes among Ecuadorian women undergoing cervical cancer screening. The overall prevalence of HPV infection was also estimated. Methods: Routine cervical samples were analyzed using Linear Array(r) HPV Genotyping test (Roche). Results: A total of 1,581 cervical samples obtained from Ecuadorian women undergoing cervical cancer screening were included in this study. HPV DNA was detected in 689 cervical samples (43.58%). Of these samples, 604 (38.20%) were positive for a single HPV genotype, while another 85 (5.37%) samples were positive for multiple HPV types. Genotype 16 (5.50%) resulted in the most frequently detected type in both single and multiple infections. HPV 33 (4.55%) and HPV 11 (3.80%) occupied the second and the third place in frequency among all detected genotypes. Conclusions: Viral genotypes different from HPV 16 and HPV 18 are frequently detected among Ecuadorian women. The overall prevalence of HPV resulted higher than the one reported in other South American countries with a greater burden in the second and third decades of life.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ditte Møller Ejegod ◽  
Camilla Lagheden ◽  
Ramya Bhatia ◽  
Helle Pedersen ◽  
Elia Alcañiz Boada ◽  
...  

Abstract BackgroundTo ensure the highest quality of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in primary cervical cancer screening, novel HPV assays must be evaluated in accordance with the international guidelines. Furthermore, HPV assay with genotyping capabilities are becoming increasingly important in triage of HPV positive women in primary HPV screening. Here we evaluate a full genotyping HPV assay intended for primary screening.MethodsThe CLART® HPV4S (CLART4S) assay is a newly developed full-genotyping assay detecting 14 oncogenic (16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66, 68) and two non-oncogenic HPV genotypes (6, 11). It was evaluated using SurePath and ThinPrep screening samples collected from the Danish and Swedish cervical cancer screening programs, respectively. For calculation of sensitivity, 81 SurePath and 80 ThinPrep samples with confirmed ≥CIN2 were assessed. For clinical specificity analysis, 1,184 SurePath and 1,169 ThinPrep samples from women with <CIN2 histology were assessed. Sensitivity and specificity of the CLART4S assay was compared to an established reference test; the MGP-PCR (Modified General Primers GP5+/6+ with genotyping using Luminex). Inter and intra laboratory reproducibility of the assay was assessed using 540 SurePath and 520 ThinPrep samples, respectively. The genotype concordance between CLART4S and MGP-PCR was also assessed.ResultsIn SurePath samples, the sensitivity of CLART4S was 0.90 (MGP-PCR =0.93) and the specificity was 0.91 (MGP-PCR=0.91); In ThinPrep samples the sensitivity of CLART4S was 0.98 (MGP-PCR=1.00) and specificity was 0.94 (MGP-PCR =0.87). The CLART4S was shown to be non-inferior to that of MGP-PCR for both sensitivity (p=0.002; p=0.01) and specificity (p=0.01; p=0.00) in SurePath and ThinPrep samples, respectively. Intra-laboratory reproducibility and inter-laboratory agreement was met for both media types. The individual genotype concordance between CLART4S and MGP-PCR was good agreement for almost all 14 HPV genotypes in both media types.ConclusionsThe CLART4S assay was proved non-inferior to the comparator assay MGP-PCR for both sensitivity and specificity using SurePath and ThinPrep cervical cancer screening samples from the Danish and Swedish screening programs, respectively. This is the first study to demonstrate clinical validation of a full-genotyping HPV assay conducted in parallel on both SurePath and ThinPrep collected samples.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ditte Møller Ejegod ◽  
Camilla Lagheden ◽  
Ramya Bhatia ◽  
Helle Pedersen ◽  
Elia Alcañiz Boada ◽  
...  

Abstract Background To ensure the highest quality of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in primary cervical cancer screening, novel HPV assays must be evaluated in accordance with the international guidelines. Furthermore, HPV assay with genotyping capabilities are becoming increasingly important in triage of HPV positive women in primary HPV screening. Here we evaluate a full genotyping HPV assay intended for primary screening.Methods The CLART® HPV4S (CLART4S) assay is a newly developed full-genotyping assay detecting 14 oncogenic (16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66, 68) and two non-oncogenic HPV genotypes (6, 11). It was evaluated using SurePath and ThinPrep screening samples collected from the Danish and Swedish cervical cancer screening programs, respectively. For calculation of sensitivity, 81 SurePath and 80 ThinPrep samples with confirmed ≥CIN2 were assessed. For clinical specificity analysis, 1,184 SurePath and 1,169 ThinPrep samples from women with <CIN2 histology were assessed. Sensitivity and specificity of the CLART4S assay was compared to an established reference test; the MGP-PCR (Modified General Primers GP5+/6+ with genotyping using Luminex). Inter and intra laboratory reproducibility of the assay was assessed using 540 SurePath and 520 ThinPrep samples, respectively. The genotype concordance between CLART4S and MGP-PCR was also assessed.Results In SurePath samples, the sensitivity of CLART4S was 0.90 (MGP-PCR =0.93) and the specificity was 0.91 (MGP-PCR=0.91); In ThinPrep samples the sensitivity of CLART4S was 0.98 (MGP-PCR=1.00) and specificity was 0.94 (MGP-PCR =0.87). The CLART4S was shown to be non-inferior to that of MGP-PCR for both sensitivity (p=0.002; p=0.01) and specificity (p=0.01; p=0.00) in SurePath and ThinPrep samples, respectively. Intra-laboratory reproducibility and inter-laboratory agreement was met for both media types. The individual genotype concordance between CLART4S and MGP-PCR was good agreement for almost all 14 HPV genotypes in both media types.Conclusions The CLART4S assay was proved non-inferior to the comparator assay MGP-PCR for both sensitivity and specificity using SurePath and ThinPrep cervical cancer screening samples from the Danish and Swedish screening programs, respectively. This is the first study to demonstrate clinical validation of a full-genotyping HPV assay conducted in parallel on both SurePath and ThinPrep collected samples.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175883592110109
Author(s):  
Binhua Dong ◽  
Huachun Zou ◽  
Xiaodan Mao ◽  
Yingying Su ◽  
Hangjing Gao ◽  
...  

Background: China’s Fujian Cervical Pilot Project (FCPP) transitioned cervical cancer screening from high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) nongenotyping to genotyping. We investigated the clinical impact of this introduction, comparing performance indicators between HR-HPV genotyping combined with cytology screening (HR-HPV genotyping period) and the previous HR-HPV nongenotyping combined with cytology screening (HR-HPV nongenotyping period). Methods: A retrospective population-based cohort study was performed using data from the FCPP for China. We obtained data for the HR-HPV nongenotyping period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2013, and for the HR-HPV genotyping period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2016. Propensity score matching was used to match women from the two periods. Multivariable Cox regression was used to assess factors associated with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+). The primary outcome was the incidence of CIN2+ in women aged ⩾25 years. Performance was assessed and included consistency, reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and cost. Results: Compared with HR-HPV nongenotyping period, in the HR-HPV genotyping period, more CIN2+ cases were identified at the initial screening (3.06% versus 2.32%; p < 0.001); the rate of colposcopy referral was higher (10.87% versus 6.64%; p < 0.001); and the hazard ratio of CIN2+ diagnosis was 1.64 (95% confidence interval, 1.43–1.88; p < 0.001) after controlling for health insurance status and age. The total costs of the first round of screening (US$66,609 versus US$65,226; p = 0.293) were similar during the two periods. Higher screening coverage (25.95% versus 25.19%; p = 0.007), higher compliance with age recommendations (92.70% versus 91.69%; p = 0.001), lower over-screening (4.92% versus 10.15%; p < 0.001), and reduced unqualified samples (cytology: 1.48% versus 1.73%, p = 0.099; HR-HPV: 0.57% versus 1.34%, p < 0.001) were observed in the HR-HPV genotyping period. Conclusions: Introduction of an HR-HPV genotyping assay in China could detect more CIN2+ lesions at earlier stages and improve programmatic indicators. Evidence suggests that the introduction of HR-HPV genotyping is likely to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer in China.


2003 ◽  
Vol 127 (8) ◽  
pp. 984-990
Author(s):  
David R. Bolick

Abstract Human papillomavirus testing is becoming an integral component of cervical cancer screening. Market forces will require most laboratories that perform Papanicolaou tests to develop a system for handling human papillomavirus testing also. Data and information are presented that may facilitate laboratories when addressing the following issues in the process of developing a human papillomavirus testing service: Which methodology is the best fit for the laboratory? Is it better to develop an in-house testing service or to send it out? How do I get started? What are the financial and economic issues, and how should they be managed?


2013 ◽  
Vol 109 (11) ◽  
pp. 2941-2950 ◽  
Author(s):  
M K Leinonen ◽  
A Anttila ◽  
N Malila ◽  
J Dillner ◽  
O Forslund ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 208-213
Author(s):  
María Dolores Comes ◽  
Rosa Oncíns ◽  
Eduardo Clemente ◽  
María Ángeles Aragón ◽  
Ana Cortés ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document