High-risk Human Papillomavirus Genotype Distribution and Attribution to Cervical Cancer and Precancerous Lesions in a Rural Chinese Population
Overview
Oncology
Affiliations
Objective: To explore the genotype distribution of high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) and its attribution to different grades of cervical lesions in rural China, which will contribute to type-specific HPV screening tests and the development of new polyvalent HPV vaccines among the Chinese population.
Methods: One thousand two hundred ninety-two subjects were followed based on the Shanxi Province Cervical Cancer Screening Study I (SPOCCS-I), and screened by HPV DNA testing (hybrid capture® 2 [HC2]), liquid-based cytology (LBC), and if necessary, directed or random colposcopy-guided quadrant biopsies. HPV genotyping with linear inverse probe hybridization (SPF10-PCR-LiPA) was performed in HC2 positive specimens. Attribution of specific HR-HPV type to different grades of cervical lesions was estimated using a fractional contribution approach.
Results: After excluding incomplete data, 1,274 women were included in the final statistical analysis. Fifteen point two percent (194/1,274) of women were HR-HPV positive for any of 13 HR-HPV types (HPV16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, and 68) and the most common HR-HPV types were HPV16 (19.1%) and HPV52 (16.5%). The genotypes most frequently detected in HR-HPV-positive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1) were HPV52 (24.1%), HPV31 (20.7%), HPV16 (13.8%), HPV33 (13.8%), HPV39 (10.3%), and HPV56 (10.3%); in HR-HPV-positive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+): HPV16 (53.1%), HPV58 (15.6%), HPV33 (12.5%), HPV51 (9.4%), and HPV52 (6.3%). HPV52, 31, 16, 33, 39, and 56 together contributed to 89.7% of HR-HPV-positive CIN1, and HPV16, 33, 58, 51, and 52 together contributed to 87.5% of CIN2+.
Conclusion: In summary, we found substantial differences in prevalence and attribution of CINs between different oncogenic HPV types in a rural Chinese population, especially for HPV16, 31, 33, 52, and 58. These differences may be relevant for both clinical management and the design of preventive strategies.
de Los Angeles Bayas-Rea R, Ponce K, Guenther A, Mosquera J, Armijos C, Mejia L BMC Glob Public Health. 2024; 2(1):46.
PMID: 39681919 PMC: 11622952. DOI: 10.1186/s44263-024-00078-x.
Yang H, Hao Y, Niu M, Zheng J, Jia X, Zhang S Front Oncol. 2024; 14:1416116.
PMID: 39439955 PMC: 11494462. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1416116.
Zhang R, Xu W, Yang S, Hu D, Bai L, Xiang R Cureus. 2024; 16(4):e58081.
PMID: 38616979 PMC: 11009475. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.58081.
Dang X, Lu Q, Li J, Li R, Feng B, Wang C Front Oncol. 2024; 14:1353580.
PMID: 38425337 PMC: 10902713. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1353580.
Awan U, Naeem W, Khattak A, Mahmood T, Kamran S, Khan S Front Oncol. 2023; 13:1257401.
PMID: 37954070 PMC: 10637352. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1257401.