4.7 Article

Human Papillomavirus Infection Among Women With Cytological Abnormalities in Switzerland Investigated by an Automated Linear Array Genotyping Test

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY
Volume 83, Issue 8, Pages 1370-1376

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.22126

Keywords

HPV typing; automated Linear Array HPV test; HPV molecular epidemiology

Categories

Funding

  1. Roche Diagnostics
  2. Hologic Corporation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Limited data are available describing human papillomavirus (HPV) genotype distribution among females with cytological abnormalities in Switzerland. Cervical cell specimens obtained from 5,318 women were screened routinely by liquid-based Pap smear. All specimens with cellular abnormalities were analyzed subsequently for HPV DNA by the Linear Array HPV genotyping test. Cellular abnormalities were found in 202 (3.8%) specimens, of which 150 (74.3%) were positive for high-risk (HR) HPV. HR-HPV was detected in 20 (60.6%; 95% Cl, 43.7-75.4%) of 33 specimens with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance compared to 98 (72.1%; 95% Cl, 64-78.9%) of 136 low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and 32 (97%; 95% CI, 83.4-99.9%) of 33 high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. The cumulative prevalence of HR-HPV other than HPV 16 and 18 was significantly higher than HPV 16 and/or 18 lesions with atypical squamous cells and low-grade lesions and was comparable in high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. The most common HR-HPV genotypes were HPV 16 (15.2%), HPV 31 (12.1%), HPV 58 (12.1%), HPV 51 (9.1%), and HPV 59 (9.1%) in women with atypical squamous cells, HPV 16 (25%), HPV 51(16.9%), HPV 52 (11.8%), HPV 31 (9.6%), and HPV 56 (8.1%) in women with low-grade lesions (LSIL) and HPV 16 (57.6%), HPV 18 (18.2%), HPV 31 (15.2%), HPV 52 (12.1%), and HPV 58 (6.1%) in women with high-grade lesions (HSIL). J. Med. Virol 83:1370-1376, 2011. (C) 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available