Trend of HPV 16/18 Genotypes in Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 3: Data for 2007–2018

AIM: In the post-vaccination era, the starting age and time intervals of cervical screening could change (older age and longer screening intervals). This scenario may be achieved by significantly reducing human papillomavirus (HPV) 16/18 prevalence (genotypes included in the current vaccines). In th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Giannella, Luca, Delli Carpini, Giovanni, Di Giuseppe, Jacopo, Bogani, Giorgio, Gardella, Barbara, Monti, Ermelinda, Liverani, Carlo Antonio, Ghelardi, Alessandro, Insinga, Salvatore, Montanari, Michele, Raspagliesi, Francesco, Spinillo, Arsenio, Vercellini, Paolo, Roncella, Elena, Ciavattini, Andrea
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2021
Materias:
Original Research
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8453441/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34557001
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S326851
Descripción
Sumario:AIM: In the post-vaccination era, the starting age and time intervals of cervical screening could change (older age and longer screening intervals). This scenario may be achieved by significantly reducing human papillomavirus (HPV) 16/18 prevalence (genotypes included in the current vaccines). In this regard, assessing the trend over time of these HPV infections in high-grade cervical lesions can provide information on the objective. The present study aimed to evaluate the trend of HPV 16/18 over the years 2007–2018 in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 3. METHODS: This is a retrospective multi-institutional study including HPV genotyped and unvaccinated women under 30 with CIN3. The sample was divided into the following periods: 2007–2010, 2011–2014, 2015–2018. HPV genotypes were grouped in genotypes 16/18, genotypes 31/33/35/52/58/67 (genetically related to HPV16), genotypes 39/45/59/68/70 (genetically related to HPV18), genotypes 31/33/45/52/58 (high-risk types included in the nonavalent vaccine), possibly carcinogenic HPV (genotypes 26/30/53/67/70/73/82/85), low-risk HPV (genotypes 6/11/40/42/43/44/54/55/61). The trend between periods and HPV genotypes was measured using the Cochran–Armitage test for trend. RESULTS: The final analysis included 474 participants. HPV 16/18 prevalence decreased significantly over the years (77.8% vs 68.9% vs 66.0%, respectively, Ptrend=0.027). Possibly carcinogenic HPV (genotypes 26/30/53/67/70/73/82/85) showed a significant negative prevalence trend over time (4.9% vs 1.1% vs 1.3%, respectively, Ptrend=0.046). Finally, there was a significant positive trend over the years for high-risk HPV genotypes 31/33/45/52/58 in women under 25 (9.9% vs 17.0% vs 24.0%, respectively, Ptrend=0.048). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of CIN3 lesions related to HPV 16/18 genotypes decreased over time from 2007 to 2018. These data highlight a herd effect of the HPV vaccine. However, fifteen years after HPV vaccine introduction, we are still a long way from herd immunity. The increase in high-risk types 31/33/45/52/58 will need to be reassessed when the nonavalent vaccine impact will be more reliable.

Ejemplares similares