Prevalence of human papillomavirus types 16, 18, and 45 in women with cervical intraepithelial changes: associations with colposcopic and histological findings.

The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16, 18, and 45 in women with cervical intraepithelial changes caused by high-risk HPV in relation to colposcopic and histological findings. MATERIAL AND METHODS. A prospective study of 393 women with cervical cytologic changes confirmed by the Papanicolaou test was undertaken from April 3, 2006, to April 3, 2007. The Hybrid Capture 2 assay was performed. HPV-positive women underwent genotyping for types 16, 18, and 45. Colposcopy and biopsy were performed in 317 (80.7%) and 249 women (63.4%), respectively. The results were analyzed by age groups. RESULTS. Of all the women with cervical intraepithelial changes, 59% were positive for HR HPV, and 62% were positive for HPV types 16, 18, and 45. HPV types 16, 18, and 45 were detected in 54.8% of women with ASC-US/AGUS/ASC-H, 50.0% of women with LSIL, and 75.6% of women with HSIL. After confirmation of any histological and colposcopic changes, HPV types 16, 18, and 45 were detected in 68.0% and 69.0% of women, respectively. Moreover, 84.2% of the women with HSIL and high-grade colposcopic changes, and 78.5% of the women with HSIL and CIN 2/CIN 2-3/CIN 3/carcinoma in situ were positive for HPV types 16, 18, and 45. The sensitivity of the Papanicolaou test together with the Hybrid Capture 2 test compared with the Papanicolaou test together with the HPV 16/18/45 test diagnosing CIN 2+ changes did not differ (96.7% vs. 97.1%), but the specificity was higher (40.3% vs. 8.0%). CONCLUSIONS. The majority of the cytologic, colposcopic, and histological changes were caused by HPV types 16, 18, and 45. Despite the high prevalence of HPV types 16, 18, and 45, testing for these genotypes together with the Papanicolaou test did not improve the diagnosis of high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions.

The Diagnostic Properties of Medical History in the Diagnosis of Tubal Pathology among Subfertile Patients.

Objectives. To evaluate the diagnostic performance of medical history in the diagnosis of tubal pathology among subfertile patients. Patients and Methods. Prospective cross-sectional study was performed. Prior to tubal evaluation, medical history data were collected. Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs) for predicting tubal pathology as determined by laparoscopy and dye test were calculated for each issue of medical history. Results. 39.6 % (59/149) were diagnosed with tubal pathology. The sensitivity for the different issues ranged between 1.7 and 54.2% and the specificity between 75.6 and 97.8%. The estimated highest value of positive LR is attributed to the history of ectopic pregnancy and lowest of negative LR to pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) and abdominal surgery. Conclusion. The positive history of PID, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), abdominal and laparoscopic surgery, and ectopic pregnancy are satisfactory screening tests for ruling the tubal pathology in. The negative history of evaluated issues is inappropriate for ruling the tubal damage out.

The value of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of tubal pathology among infertile patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of tubal pathology among infertile patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study in Kaunas University of Medicine Hospital within the period of 18 months was performed. Consecutive infertile women formed the study group according to defined criteria. Hysterosalpingography was performed in the preovulatory phase of the menstrual cycle. Laparoscopy and dye test was performed within one - three months after hysterosalpingography. General tubal pathology, tubal occlusion, and peritubal adhesions detected at hysterosalpingography were compared with general tubal pathology, tubal occlusion, and peritubal adhesions detected at laparoscopy. RESULTS: The study population comprised 149 infertile women. The sensitivity of 81.4% and specificity of 47.8% the likelihood ratio of a positive test result of 1.6 and a negative test result of 0.4 for hysterosalpingography while evaluating general tubal pathology was determined. Sensitivity of 84.1% and specificity of 59.1% and likelihood ratios of 2.1 and 0.3, respectively, were calculated, when tubal occlusion was defined as any abnormality of tubal patency. When definition of tubal occlusion was limited to two-sided occlusion, the sensitivity and specificity were 89.5% and 90% and likelihood ratios 9.0 and 0.1, respectively. As a test of peritubal adhesions, hysterosalpingography had sensitivity of 35.5% and specificity of 81.3% and likelihood ratios of 1.9 and 0.8, respectively. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of general tubal pathology and peritubal adhesions is poor. Hysterosalpingography is more accurate in the diagnosis of tubal occlusion.