Cited by 25Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchReproductive tract infections researchWomen's cancer prevention and management

Identification of vaccine human papillomavirus genotypes in squamous intraepithelial lesions (CIN2–3)

González-Bosquet, Eduardo, Esteva, Cristina, Muñoz-Almagro, Carmen, Ferrer, Patricia, Pérez, Miriam, Lailla, Jose M.·2008·Gynecologic Oncology

Abstract

Objective To identify the prevalence of human papillomavirus vaccine genotypes and non-vaccine genotypes implicated in the appearance of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2-3). Methods Prospective study of 519 women with abnormal cytology. All the women underwent a second Papanicolaou test, cervicovaginal sampling for type-specific HPV detection and colposcopy, and women with abnormal colposcopy results were referred to biopsy. Pearson's chi-square test was used for statistical analysis. Results HPV was detected in 340 patients (65.5%), and in 125 (24%) more than one HPV genotype was present. We selected 206 patients with CIN2 or CIN3 confirmed by biopsy. In 88 (42.7%) of these patients, HPV types 16 and 18 were detected, but only 58 (28.2%) without co-infection by other high-risk or probable high-risk HPV types. In 115 (55.8%) women diagnosed with CIN2 or CIN3 high-risk or probable high-risk HPV types other than 16 or 18 were found. High-risk and/or probable high-risk HPV genotypes not included in the vaccine were isolated in this study more frequently than 16 or 18, and this difference was statistically significant (p=0.047). Of the 206 women diagnosed with CIN2 or CIN3, 19 tested negative for HPV and 14 tested positive for low-risk HPV types. Conclusion Only 28.2% of women with CIN2 or CIN3 confirmed by biopsy were infected exclusively by HPV type 16 or 18, a finding that places in doubt the degree of protection afforded by HPV vaccination.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.06.012

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
González-Bosquet, E., Esteva, C., Muñoz-Almagro, C., Ferrer, P., Pérez, M., & Lailla, J. M.
Affiliations
Hospital Sant Joan de Déu Barcelona (ES)
Venue
Gynecologic Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-10
Volume
111
Issue
1
Pages
9-12
ISSN
0090-8258 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2129224786
Cited by
25
References
0
Citations by year
2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Gynecologic Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Universitat Rovira i Virgili
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
Keywords
human papillomavirus, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, CIN2/3, HPV16, HPV 18, HPV co-infection, high-risk HPV, vaccine protection, cervical cancer prevention, low-risk HPV
MeSH terms
Adult, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Genotype, Humans, Prospective Studies, Vaginal Smears, Conization, Papillomaviridae, Papillomavirus Infections, Human papillomavirus 18, Human papillomavirus 16, Papillomavirus Vaccines, Papanicolaou Test

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review