Mustafa Gökkaya, Aysun Alcı, Okan Aytekin, Mehmet Unsal, Caner Cakır, Okan Oktar, Necim Yalcin, Alper Kahraman, Alp Tokalioglu, Burak Ersak, Hande Esra Koca Yıldırım, Sevgi Koc, Tayfun Toptas, Fatih Kilic, Fatih Celik, Nurettin Boran, Yaprak Ustun, Ozlem Moraloglu Tekin, Gunsu Kimyon Comert, Vakkas Korkmaz, Taner Turan, Isin Ureyen
{"title":"HPV-18 合并感染是否会增加 HPV-16 感染者发生宫颈病变的风险？","authors":"Mustafa Gökkaya, Aysun Alcı, Okan Aytekin, Mehmet Unsal, Caner Cakır, Okan Oktar, Necim Yalcin, Alper Kahraman, Alp Tokalioglu, Burak Ersak, Hande Esra Koca Yıldırım, Sevgi Koc, Tayfun Toptas, Fatih Kilic, Fatih Celik, Nurettin Boran, Yaprak Ustun, Ozlem Moraloglu Tekin, Gunsu Kimyon Comert, Vakkas Korkmaz, Taner Turan, Isin Ureyen","doi":"10.1111/cyt.13422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>We aimed to investigate differences between HPV-16 mono- and HPV-16/18 co-infections in terms of cervical dysplasia and invasive cancer.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This multicentre, retrospective study spanned from December 2017 to December 2020, involving women who visited gynaecological oncology clinics for colposcopy with either HPV-16 or HPV-16/18 positivity. A total of 736 patients, 670 in Group 1 (HPV-16 positivity) and 66 in Group 2 (HPV-16/18 positivity), were compared for the presence of CIN2+ lesions detected by colposcopic biopsy or endocervical curettage (ECC). Exclusions included hysterectomized patients, those with prior gynaecological cancers, and patients with HPV positivity other than types 16 and 18.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Among the included patients, 42.4% had a diagnosis of CIN2+ lesions. The cytology results demonstrated abnormal findings in 45.3% in Group 1 and 42.2% in Group 2, with no significant difference between the groups. ECC revealed CIN2+ lesion in 49 (8.7%) patients in group 1, while only 1 (1.7%) patient had CIN2+ lesion in group 2. There was no difference between 2 groups in terms of ECC result (<i>p</i> = 0.052). In group 1, 289 (43.1%) patients had CIN2+ lesion, while 23 (34.8%) patients had CIN2+ lesions in group 2. There was no difference between group 1 and 2 in terms of diagnosis of CIN2+ lesions (<i>p</i> = 0.19).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This multicentre retrospective study found no significant differences between HPV-16 mono- and HPV-16/18 co-infections regarding cervical pathologies. Larger studies are needed to validate and further explore these findings.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55187,"journal":{"name":"Cytopathology","volume":"35 6","pages":"757-760"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does HPV-18 co-infection increase the risk of cervical pathology in individuals with HPV-16?\",\"authors\":\"Mustafa Gökkaya, Aysun Alcı, Okan Aytekin, Mehmet Unsal, Caner Cakır, Okan Oktar, Necim Yalcin, Alper Kahraman, Alp Tokalioglu, Burak Ersak, Hande Esra Koca Yıldırım, Sevgi Koc, Tayfun Toptas, Fatih Kilic, Fatih Celik, Nurettin Boran, Yaprak Ustun, Ozlem Moraloglu Tekin, Gunsu Kimyon Comert, Vakkas Korkmaz, Taner Turan, Isin Ureyen\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cyt.13422\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>We aimed to investigate differences between HPV-16 mono- and HPV-16/18 co-infections in terms of cervical dysplasia and invasive cancer.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This multicentre, retrospective study spanned from December 2017 to December 2020, involving women who visited gynaecological oncology clinics for colposcopy with either HPV-16 or HPV-16/18 positivity. A total of 736 patients, 670 in Group 1 (HPV-16 positivity) and 66 in Group 2 (HPV-16/18 positivity), were compared for the presence of CIN2+ lesions detected by colposcopic biopsy or endocervical curettage (ECC). Exclusions included hysterectomized patients, those with prior gynaecological cancers, and patients with HPV positivity other than types 16 and 18.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Among the included patients, 42.4% had a diagnosis of CIN2+ lesions. The cytology results demonstrated abnormal findings in 45.3% in Group 1 and 42.2% in Group 2, with no significant difference between the groups. ECC revealed CIN2+ lesion in 49 (8.7%) patients in group 1, while only 1 (1.7%) patient had CIN2+ lesion in group 2. There was no difference between 2 groups in terms of ECC result (<i>p</i> = 0.052). In group 1, 289 (43.1%) patients had CIN2+ lesion, while 23 (34.8%) patients had CIN2+ lesions in group 2. There was no difference between group 1 and 2 in terms of diagnosis of CIN2+ lesions (<i>p</i> = 0.19).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>This multicentre retrospective study found no significant differences between HPV-16 mono- and HPV-16/18 co-infections regarding cervical pathologies. Larger studies are needed to validate and further explore these findings.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55187,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cytopathology\",\"volume\":\"35 6\",\"pages\":\"757-760\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cytopathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cyt.13422\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CELL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cytopathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cyt.13422","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CELL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Does HPV-18 co-infection increase the risk of cervical pathology in individuals with HPV-16?
Objective
We aimed to investigate differences between HPV-16 mono- and HPV-16/18 co-infections in terms of cervical dysplasia and invasive cancer.
Methods
This multicentre, retrospective study spanned from December 2017 to December 2020, involving women who visited gynaecological oncology clinics for colposcopy with either HPV-16 or HPV-16/18 positivity. A total of 736 patients, 670 in Group 1 (HPV-16 positivity) and 66 in Group 2 (HPV-16/18 positivity), were compared for the presence of CIN2+ lesions detected by colposcopic biopsy or endocervical curettage (ECC). Exclusions included hysterectomized patients, those with prior gynaecological cancers, and patients with HPV positivity other than types 16 and 18.
Results
Among the included patients, 42.4% had a diagnosis of CIN2+ lesions. The cytology results demonstrated abnormal findings in 45.3% in Group 1 and 42.2% in Group 2, with no significant difference between the groups. ECC revealed CIN2+ lesion in 49 (8.7%) patients in group 1, while only 1 (1.7%) patient had CIN2+ lesion in group 2. There was no difference between 2 groups in terms of ECC result (p = 0.052). In group 1, 289 (43.1%) patients had CIN2+ lesion, while 23 (34.8%) patients had CIN2+ lesions in group 2. There was no difference between group 1 and 2 in terms of diagnosis of CIN2+ lesions (p = 0.19).
Conclusion
This multicentre retrospective study found no significant differences between HPV-16 mono- and HPV-16/18 co-infections regarding cervical pathologies. Larger studies are needed to validate and further explore these findings.
期刊介绍：
The aim of Cytopathology is to publish articles relating to those aspects of cytology which will increase our knowledge and understanding of the aetiology, diagnosis and management of human disease. It contains original articles and critical reviews on all aspects of clinical cytology in its broadest sense, including: gynaecological and non-gynaecological cytology; fine needle aspiration and screening strategy.
Cytopathology welcomes papers and articles on: ultrastructural, histochemical and immunocytochemical studies of the cell; quantitative cytology and DNA hybridization as applied to cytological material.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
