Cited by 54Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchReproductive tract infections researchWomen's cancer prevention and management

HPV genotype distribution according to severity of cervical neoplasia

Sjoeborg, Katrine D., Tropé, Ameli, Lie, Agnes Kathrine, Jonassen, Christine M., Steinbakk, Martin, Hansen, Mona, Jacobsen, Morten B., Cuschieri, Kate +1 more·2010·Gynecologic Oncology

Abstract

Objective To analyse the HPV genotype profile and the presence of multiple HPV infections according to severity of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Methods From a population of 424,143 women in Norway, we included all women (n=643) with histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+) and evaluable HPV test during 2005 and 2006. Histology revealed CIN2 in 135 women, CIN3/ACIS in 495, and invasive carcinoma in 13 women. HPV genotyping was performed on cell suspensions from cervix by linear array which differentiates 37 HPV genotypes. Results HPV was detected in 98.4% (633/643) of the women, of whom 52.5% (338/643) were infected with more than one HPV genotype. HPV16 was most common, being detected in 51.2% (329/643) of all cases, followed by HPV31, 33, 52, 18, and 51. Overall, HPV 16 or 18 were detected in 58.0% (373/643), with 34.7% (223/643) without concurrence of other high-risk genotypes. HPV16 and HPV33 as single infections were more common in women with CIN3+ as compared to CIN2 (age-adjusted odds ratio=5.93, 95% CI=2.73-12.87, and age-adjusted odds ratio=4.53, 95% CI=1.42-14.46, respectively). Concurrent infection with other HPV genotypes did not significantly alter the associations to CIN3+ for HPV16 or HPV33. A single HPV infection, other than HPV16, 18, 31, or 33, was used as the reference. HPV18 or multiple HPV infections not including HPV16 or HPV33 were not associated with the severity of cervical neoplasia. Conclusion HPV16…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.03.007

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
Sjoeborg, K. D., Tropé, A., Lie, A. K., Jonassen, C. M., Steinbakk, M., Hansen, M., Jacobsen, M. B., Cuschieri, K., & Eskild, A.
Affiliations
  • Akershus University Hospital (NO)
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • Edinburgh Royal Infirmary (GB)
Venue
Gynecologic Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-07
Volume
118
Issue
1
Pages
29-34
ISSN
0090-8258 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2105193809
Cited by
54
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Gynecologic Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Health Region East (2769112)
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, HPV genotypes, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, multiple HPV infection, HPV16, HPV 33, HPV 18, HPV 31, HPV52, HPV51, cervical cancer, oncogenicity
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Genotype, Humans, Middle Aged, Norway, Risk Factors, Severity of Illness Index, Papillomavirus Infections, Alphapapillomavirus, Young Adult

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