2003PubMedRequires access

[Human papillomavirus infection and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia].

L Ševčík, Peter Koliba, M Konderla, Paul C. F. Graf, J Hlavacka

Open publisher page 3 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the presence of high-risk, oncogenic types of HPV infection (HR HPV) and the presence of HPV 16 and 18 in various degrees of cervical and intraepithelial neoplasia. TYPE OF THE STUDY: A retrospective study. NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE INSTITUTION: Obstetrical-Gynecological Clinic, Faculty Hospital, Ostrava. METHODS: The study included 205 female patients indicated for conization due to cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. The conization was preceded by extended colposcopy, cytological samplings, HPV DNA test and a directed biopsy. HR HPV was examined in all patients, HPV 18 and 16, respectively, in 98 (48%) patients. Based on severity of histopathological findings the patients were divided into three groups, examined for positivity of oncogenic HPV types and the high risk HPV 18 and HPV 18 types, respectively. RESULTS: The histopathological findings from a total number of 205 conuses included five (2%) benign lesions, 85 (41%) CIN1, 77 (38%) CIN 2 and 38 (19%) CIN 3. Altogether the HR HPV was demonstrated in 143 (70%) patients. In patients with the benign lesion no HPV infection was detected. In patients with the CIN 1 finding the HR HPV infection was detected in 35 (41%) cases, in patients with CIN 2 in 70 (91%) cases and in patients with CIN 3 in 38 (100%) cases. HPV 16 was diagnosed in patients with the CIN 1 finding in 9 (23%) cases, HPV 16 in 5 (6%) cases and both types of the virus were present in two (2%) cases. In CIN 2, HPV 16 was positive in 17 (43%) and HPV 18 in 6 (8%) cases. In patients with CIN 3, HPV 18 was detected in 9 (53%) and HPV 18 in 2 (5%) patients. In all the women who underwent conization, HPV 16 infection was demonstrated in 17% and HPV 18 in 6% patients. In 19% of patients, the infection by at least one type of the virus was present and in two % both types of the virus were present. CONCLUSION: The presence of HR HPV rises with increasing severity of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, HR HPV being detected in all cases suffering from CIN 3. The highest risk type HPV 16 was present with increasing rate in relation to the severity of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, whereas no such trend was present in case of HPV 18.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To determine the presence of high-risk, oncogenic types of HPV infection (HR HPV) and the presence of HPV 16 and 18 in various degrees of cervical and intraepithelial neoplasia. TYPE OF THE STUDY: A retrospective study. NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE INSTITUTION: Obstetrical-Gynecological Clinic, Faculty Hospital, Ostrava. METHODS: The study included 205 female patients indicated for conization due to cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. The conization was preceded by extended colposcopy, cytological samplings, HPV DNA test and a directed biopsy. HR HPV was examined in all patients, HPV 18 and 16, respectively, in 98 (48%) patients. Based on severity of histopathological findings the patients were divided into three groups, examined for positivity of oncogenic HPV types and the high risk HPV 18 and HPV 18 types, respectively. RESULTS: The histopathological findings from a total number of 205 conuses included five (2%) benign lesions, 85 (41%) CIN1, 77 (38%) CIN 2 and 38 (19%) CIN 3. Altogether the HR HPV was demonstrated in 143 (70%) patients. In patients with the benign lesion no HPV infection was detected. In patients with the CIN 1 finding the HR HPV infection was detected in 35 (41%) cases, in patients with CIN 2 in 70 (91%) cases and in patients with CIN 3 in 38 (100%) cases. HPV 16 was diagnosed in patients with the CIN 1 finding in 9 (23%) cases, HPV 16 in 5 (6%) cases and both types of the virus were present in two (2%) cases. In CIN 2, HPV 16 was positive in 17 (43%) and HPV 18 in 6 (8%) cases. In patients with CIN 3, HPV 18 was detected in 9 (53%) and HPV 18 in 2 (5%) patients. In all the women who underwent conization, HPV 16 infection was demonstrated in 17% and HPV 18 in 6% patients. In 19% of patients, the infection by at least one type of the virus was present and in two % both types of the virus were present. CONCLUSION: The presence of HR HPV rises with increasing severity of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, HR HPV being detected in all cases suffering from CIN 3. The highest risk type HPV 16 was present with increasing rate in relation to the severity of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, whereas no such trend was present in case of HPV 18.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the presence of high-risk, oncogenic types of HPV infection (HR HPV) and the presence of HPV 16 and 18 in various degrees of cervical and intraepithelial neoplasia. TYPE OF THE STUDY: A retrospective study. NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE INSTITUTION: Obstetrical-Gynecological Clinic, Faculty Hospital, Ostrava. METHODS: The study included 205 female patients indicated for conization due to cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. The conization was preceded by extended colposcopy, cytological samplings, HPV DNA test and a directed biopsy. HR HPV was examined in all patients, HPV 18 and 16, respectively, in 98 (48%) patients. Based on severity of histopathological findings the patients were divided into three groups, examined for positivity of oncogenic HPV types and the high risk HPV 18 and HPV 18 types, respectively. RESULTS: The histopathological findings from a total number of 205 conuses included five (2%) benign lesions, 85 (41%) CIN1, 77 (38%) CIN 2 and 38 (19%) CIN 3. Altogether the HR HPV was demonstrated in 143 (70%) patients. In patients with the benign lesion no HPV infection was detected. In patients with the CIN 1 finding the HR HPV infection was detected in 35 (41%) cases, in patients with CIN 2 in 70 (91%) cases and in patients with CIN 3 in 38 (100%) cases. HPV 16 was diagnosed in patients with the CIN 1 finding in 9 (23%) cases, HPV 16 in 5 (6%) cases and both types of the virus were present in two (2%) cases. In CIN 2, HPV 16 was positive in 17 (43%) and HPV 18 in 6 (8%) cases. In patients with CIN 3, HPV 18 was detected in 9 (53%) and HPV 18 in 2 (5%) patients. In all the women who underwent conization, HPV 16 infection was demonstrated in 17% and HPV 18 in 6% patients. In 19% of patients, the infection by at least one type of the virus was present and in two % both types of the virus were present. CONCLUSION: The presence of HR HPV rises with increasing severity of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, HR HPV being detected in all cases suffering from CIN 3. The highest risk type HPV 16 was present with increasing rate in relation to the severity of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, whereas no such trend was present in case of HPV 18.

Key concepts: Medicine, Colposcopy, Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, HPV infection, Human papillomavirus, Gynecology, Biopsy, Retrospective cohort study

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
[Human papillomavirus infection and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia]. — Research Paper | ScholarLens