Obstet Gynecol Sci.  2014 Jan;57(1):37-43.

Effect of human papillomavirus genotype on severity and prognosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia

• Ku CH
• Lee SH
• Lee SP

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
This study evaluated the effect of the specific human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes on severity and prognosis in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) patients.
METHODS
The medical records of 446 patients treated with loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) were reviewed. The severity of CIN was categorized as CIN1/CIN2 versus CIN3+ including CIN3 and carcinoma in situ (CIS). HPV genotypes were categorized as 1) low risk, 2) intermediate risk, 3) high risk/HPV 16, 4) high risk/HPV 18, and 5) unclassified. Progression was defined as abnormal cytology, including atypical squamous cells, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. The margin status and progression free survival (PFS) by HPV genotypes were analyzed in 355 women with three months or more of post-treatment records.
RESULTS
CIN3+ was the most common CIN type (67.7%), and high risk/HPV 16 (26.9%) was the most common genotype. Intermediate risk (P < 0.01), high risk/HPV 16 (P < 0.01) and high risk/HPV 18 (P < 0.01) were significantly more common in women with CIN3+ than CIN1/CIN2. Patients with high risk/HPV 18 showed the highest rate of positive margins (P < 0.01). The margin status proved to be the only statistically significant factor affecting PFS.
CONCLUSION
The proportion of positive margins was significantly different by HPV genotypes and highest in high risk/HPV 18 group. CIN patients with high risk/HPV 18 need to be more carefully tracked than patients with the other HPV genotypes.

Keyword

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Genotype; Human papillomavirus; Prognosis

MeSH Terms

Carcinoma in Situ
Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia*
Disease-Free Survival
Female
Genotype*
Humans*
Medical Records
Prognosis*
Track and Field

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Univariate analysis of progression free survival (PFS). (A) PFS was significantly lower (P < 0.01) in the positive margin group than the negative margin group. (B) Human papilloma virus (HPV) genotype had no significant effect on PFS (P = 0.19).

Reference

1. De Villiers EM, Fauquet C, Broker TR, Bernard HU, zur Hausen H. Classification of papillomaviruses. Virology. 2004; 324:17–27.

2. Munoz N, Bosch FX, de Sanjose S, Herrero R, Castellsague X, Shah KV, et al. Epidemiologic classification of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348:518–527.

3. Lorincz AT, Reid R, Jenson AB, Greenberg MD, Lancaster W, Kurman RJ. Human papillomavirus infection of the cervix: relative risk associations of 15 common anogenital types. Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 79:328–337.

4. Cox JT, Schiffman M, Solomon D. ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS) Group. Prospective follow-up suggests similar risk of subsequent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or negative colposcopy and directed biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188:1406–1412.

5. Ostor AG. Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1993; 12:186–192.

6. Nuovo J, Melnikow J, Willan AR, Chan BK. Treatment outcomes for squamous intraepithelial lesions. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2000; 68:25–33.

7. Skjeldestad FE, Hagen B, Lie AK, Isaksen C. Residual and recurrent disease after laser conization for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 90:428–433.

8. Castle PE, Stoler MH, Solomon D, Schiffman M. The relationship of community biopsy-diagnosed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 to the quality control pathology-reviewed diagnoses: an ALTS report. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007; 127:805–815.

9. Wright TC Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, Spitzer M, Wilkinson EJ, Solomon D, et al. 2006 Consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 197:340–345.

10. Oh JK, Franceschi S, Kim BK, Kim JY, Ju YH, Hong EK, et al. Prevalence of human papillomavirus and Chlamydia trachomatis infection among women attending cervical cancer screening in the Republic of Korea. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2009; 18:56–61.

11. An HJ, Cho NH, Lee SY, Kim IH, Lee C, Kim SJ, et al. Correlation of cervical carcinoma and precancerous lesions with human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes detected with the HPV DNA chip microarray method. Cancer. 2003; 97:1672–1680.

12. Lee HS, Kim KM, Kim SM, Choi YD, Nam JH, Park CS, et al. Human papillomavirus genotyping using HPV DNA chip analysis in Korean women. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007; 17:497–501.

13. Konno R, Shin HR, Kim YT, Song YS, Sasagawa T, Inoue M, et al. Human papillomavirus infection and cervical cancer prevention in Japan and Korea. Vaccine. 2008; 26:Suppl 12. M30–M42.

14. Sjoeborg KD, Trope A, Lie AK, Jonassen CM, Steinbakk M, Hansen M, et al. HPV genotype distribution according to severity of cervical neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol. 2010; 118:29–34.

15. Kim CJ, Lee YS, Kwack HS, Yoon WS, Park TC, Park JS. Specific human papillomavirus types and other factors on the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a case-control study in Korea. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010; 20:1067–1073.

16. Smith JS, Lindsay L, Hoots B, Keys J, Franceschi S, Winer R, et al. Human papillomavirus type distribution in invasive cervical cancer and high-grade cervical lesions: a meta-analysis update. Int J Cancer. 2007; 121:621–632.

17. Chang DY, Cheng WF, Torng PL, Chen RJ, Huang SC. Prediction of residual neoplasia based on histopathology and margin status of conization specimens. Gynecol Oncol. 1996; 63:53–56.

18. Schwartz SM, Daling JR, Shera KA, Madeleine MM, McKnight B, Galloway DA, et al. Human papillomavirus and prognosis of invasive cervical cancer: a population-based study. J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19:1906–1915.

19. Kang WD, Kim CH, Cho MK, Kim JW, Cho HY, Kim YH, et al. HPV-18 is a poor prognostic factor, unlike the HPV viral load, in patients with stage IB-IIA cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 2011; 121:546–550.

20. Burger RA, Monk BJ, Kurosaki T, Anton-Culver H, Vasilev SA, Berman ML, et al. Human papillomavirus type 18: association with poor prognosis in early stage cervical cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996; 88:1361–1368.

21. Kinney WK, Manos MM, Hurley LB, Ransley JE. Where's the high-grade cervical neoplasia? The importance of minimally abnormal Papanicolaou diagnoses. Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 91:973–976.

22. ASCUS-LSIL Traige Study (ALTS) Group. Results of a randomized trial on the management of cytology interpretations of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188:1383–1392.

23. Lonky NM, Felix JC, Naidu YM, Wolde-Tsadik G. Triage of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance with hybrid capture II: colposcopy and histologic human papillomavirus correlation. Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 101:481–489.

24. Levi AW, Kelly DP, Rosenthal DL, Ronnett BM. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance in liquid-based cytologic specimens: results of reflex human papillomavirus testing and histologic follow-up in routine practice with comparison of interpretive and probabilistic reporting methods. Cancer. 2003; 99:191–197.