RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Cancers and intraepithelial lesions of different anogenital areas as well as oral cancer are associated with human papilloma virus (HPV) infections. METHODS: In this study cervical, vaginal, vulvar, anal, and oral samples were taken from 509 patients visiting our dysplasia consultation clinic. HPV genotyping was performed using the EUROArray HPV test. RESULTS: Positivity of HR HPV was found in 60.4-64.3% of anogenital and 14.6% of oral samples. HPV 16 showed the highest incidence in all investigated areas. In cervical and vaginal samples HPV 31 was detected second most, while in vulvar, anal, and oral samples HPV 53 was the second most common subtype. HPV 18 was found lower in all areas, while HPV 51, HPV 52, and HPV 73 were detected higher than expected from published data. A good concordance between cervical, vaginal and vulvar samples was examined for most of the HPV. HR HPV infection was higher in cervical cancer (CC; 91.7%) and high-grade intraepithelial squamous lesions (HSIL; 93.9%) compared to low-grade SIL (LSIL; 69.6%) and normal samples (44.8%). CONCLUSION: In addition to the well described HPV subtypes, we found others with high incidences in the investigated areas which may be evident for HSIL and CC of those areas.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Post-treatment follow-up in women with cervical pre-cancers (CIN3) is mandatory due to relapse in up to 10% of patients. Standard follow-up based on hrHPV-DNA/cytology co-testing has high sensitivity but limited specificity. The aim of our prospective, multicenter, observational study was to test the hypothesis that an individualized viral-cellular-junction test (vcj-PCR) combined with cytology has a lower false positive rate for the prediction of recurrence compared to standard co-testing. METHODS: Pre-surgical cervical swabs served for the identification of HPV16/18 DNA integration sites by next-generation-sequencing (NGS). Samples taken at 6, 12 and 24 months post-surgery were evaluated by cytology, hrHPV-DNA and the patients' individual HPV-integration sites (vcj-PCR on the basis of NGS). RESULTS: Integration sites were detected in 48 of 445 patients (10.8%), 39 of them had valid follow-up data. The false positive rate was 18.2% (95% CI 8.6-34.4%) for standard hrHPV/cytology at six months compared to 12.1% (95% CI 4.8-27.3%) for vcj-PCR/cytology, respectively (McNemar p = 0.50). Six patients developed recurrences (1 CIN2, 5 CIN3) during follow-up. Standard co-testing detected all, whereas vcj-PCR/cytology detected only five patients with recurrences. Data of 269 patients without evidence of HPV16/18 integration were subject to post-hoc analyses. Standard co-testing revealed a false positive rate of 15.7% (95% CI 11.7-20.7%) and predicted ten of fourteen recurrences at six months. CONCLUSIONS: Although highly specific on its own vcj-PCR could not detect all recurrent CIN2/3. Possible reasons for this unexpected result may be multifocal lesions, intratumoral heterogeneity with respect to HPV integration and/or incident CIN.
