Diagnostic value of high-risk human papillomavirus viral load on cervical lesion assessment and ASCUS triage

Min Wang, Bo Hou, Xianzhen Wang, Lu Han, Yulin Shi, Yi Zhang, Lili Zhang, Lili Liu, Fen Jin, Yi Zhang, Min Wang, Bo Hou, Xianzhen Wang, Lu Han, Yulin Shi, Yi Zhang, Lili Zhang, Lili Liu, Fen Jin, Yi Zhang

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate HR-HPV viral load in the cervical lesion assessment and its diagnostic value on the triage of ASCUS. The three-step protocol for cervical cancer screening was carried out in 5171 patients from June 2017 to August 2019, and 1620 histopathological results were obtained. The positive rate of HR-HPV and TCT increased with the aggravation of pathological grades of cervical lesions. The sensitivity and specificity of HR-HPV (DH3) to detect CIN II+ were 91.91% and 84.46%, respectively. In comparison, the corresponding results of the cytology test were 80.51% and 83.12%. HPV16/18 viral load was positively correlated with the grade of cervical lesions (p < 0.001, r = 0.321). The diagnostic efficiency of AUC by applying HPV16/18 viral load was 0.682 for the diagnosis of CIN II+. The optimal HPV16/18 viral load for predicting CIN II+ was 6.80 RLU/CO (relative light units/cut-off), with corresponding sensitivity of 48.6%, specificity of 79.7%, and Youden index of 0.283. In the ASCUS population, viral loads were statistically different in HPV16/18 and the other 12 HR-HPV when compared cervicitis group with CIN I group and CIN II+ group (all p < 0.05). Statistical differences were detected concerning HPV16/18 viral load, contact bleeding status, and smoking status when compared cervicitis group with CIN I group and CIN II+ group (p < 0.05), with a corresponding odds ratio of 1.004, 1.533, and 5.513, respectively. Our findings suggest that HR-HPV viral load can be regarded as a useful tool to predict the grade of cervical lesions for ASCUS triage. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03178136.

Keywords: ASCUS; HR-HPV viral load; cervical lesions.

Conflict of interest statement

There is no conflict of interest in this study.

© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

References

    1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(2):69‐90.
    1. de Sanjose S, Quint WG, Alemany L, et al. Human papillomavirus genotype attribution in invasive cervical cancer: a retrospective cross‐sectional worldwide study. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(11):1048‐1056.
    1. Tjalma WA, Fiander A, Reich O, et al. Differences in human papillomavirus type distribution in high‐grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive cervical cancer in Europe. Int J Cancer. 2013;132(4):854‐867.
    1. Bosch FX, Lorincz A, Muñoz N, Meijer CJ, Shah KV. The causal relation between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2002;55(4):244‐265.
    1. Pham TH, Nguyen TH, Herrero R, et al. Human papillomavirus infection among women in South and North Vietnam. Int J Cancer. 2003;104(2):213‐220.
    1. Xin HE, Huicheng T, Chen L, et al. Epidemiological characteristics of HR‐HPV infection and its relationship with cervical precancerous lesions in population of hospital opportunistic screening. J Capital Med Uni. 2015;2:219‐225.
    1. Tan EL, Looi LM, Sam CK. Evaluation of plasma epstein‐barr virus DNA load as a prognostic marker for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Singapore Med J. 2006;47(9):803‐807.
    1. Xi LF, Koutsky LA, Castle PE, et al. Human papillomavirus type 18 DNA load and 2‐year cumulative diagnoses of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2–3. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(3):153‐161.
    1. Cricca M, Morselli‐Labate AM, Venturoli S, et al. Viral DNA load, physical status and E2/E6 ratio as markers to grade HPV16 positive women for high‐grade cervical lesions. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;106(3):549‐557.
    1. Depuydt CE, Criel AM, Benoy IH, et al. Changes in type‐specific human papillomaviral load predict progression to cervical cancer. J Cell Mol Med. 2012;16(12):3096‐3104.
    1. Park JY, Lee KH, Dong SM, et al. The association of pre‐conization high‐risk HPV load and the persistence of HPV infection and persistence/recurrence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after conization. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;108(3):549‐554.
    1. Ho CM, Lee BH, Chang SF, et al. Type‐specific human papillomavirus oncogene messenger RNA levels correlate with the severity of cervical neoplasia. Int J Cancer. 2010;127(3):622‐632.
    1. Dong B, Sun P, Ruan G, et al. Type‐specific high‐risk human papillomavirus viral load as a viable triage indicator for high‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesion: a nested case‐ control study. Cancer Manag Res. 2018;10:4839‐4851.
    1. Li J, Jinghe L, Youfang W, et al. Grading relationship between high‐risk human papillomaviral load and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Reprod Contracep. 2006;07:422‐425.
    1. Fu XL, Schiffman M, Ke Y, et al. Type‐dependent association between risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and viral load of oncogenic human papillomavirus types other than types 16 and 18. Int J Cancer. 2017;140(8):1747‐1756.
    1. Li Shumin WU, Lingying HM, Feng C. A preliminary study on the relationship between human papillomaviral load and cervical cancer and its precancerous lesions. Chinese J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;06:42‐44.
    1. Yarandi F, Shojaei H, Eftekhar Z, et al. Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance, after six months delay: a three‐year experience in an Iranian university hospital. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;49(2):207‐210.
    1. Li X, Jiang XJ, Zhou XH. Discussion on treatment of atypical squamous cell of undetermined significance. Chinese J Wom Child Health Res. 2013;24(3):436‐438.
    1. Li SR, Wang ZM, Wang YH, et al. Value of PAX1 methylation analysis by MS‐HRM in the triage of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(14):5843‐5846.
    1. Molijn A, Jenkins D, Chen W, et al. The complex relationship between human papillomavirus and cervical adenocarcinoma. Int J Cancer. 2016;138(2):409‐416.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera