Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Research Articles

Human Papillomavirus Genotypes in Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 3

Philip E. Castle, Mark Schiffman, Cosette M. Wheeler, Nicolas Wentzensen and Patti E. Gravitt
Philip E. Castle
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark Schiffman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cosette M. Wheeler
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicolas Wentzensen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patti E. Gravitt
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0251 Published July 2010
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: There are few large case series describing the human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes found in women diagnosed with rigorously reviewed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3), cervical precancer.

Methods: The Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance (ASCUS) and Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion (LSIL) Triage Study (ALTS) was a clinical trial to evaluate the best management strategies for women with equivocal (ASCUS) or mildly abnormal (LSIL) Pap tests. During enrollment and the 2-year follow-up, 608 women had a histopathologic diagnosis of CIN3 and PCR-based HPV genotyping results on cervical specimens. The genotyping results were ranked hierarchically according to cancer risk: HPV16 > other carcinogenic HPV > noncarcinogenic HPV > PCR negative.

Results: Among the 608 women diagnosed with CIN3, 601 (98.8%) cases were positive for any HPV genotype and 95.4% for any carcinogenic HPV. HPV16 (59.9%), HPV31 (18.1%), HPV52 (14.8%), HPV51 (14.0%), and HPV18 (13.2%) were the five most common HPV genotypes detected. Younger age, consensus histologic confirmation, smoking, and multiparity increased the likelihood of testing HPV 16 positive. Specifically, HPV16-positive CIN3 occurred at a younger age than CIN3 positive for other carcinogenic HPV genotypes (median of 23.5 years versus 25 years, respectively; P = 0.0003, Kruskal-Wallis).

Conclusions: HPV16-positive CIN3 was more commonly diagnosed in younger women (versus older women), with consensus diagnosis (versus some disagreement between reviewers), and in smokers (versus nonsmokers), and was less commonly diagnosed in multiparous women compared CIN3 positive for other carcinogenic HPV genotypes.

Impact: In populations vaccinated against HPV16 (and HPV18), the median age of CIN3 in women with ASCUS and LSIL cytology should shift to older ages, possibly permitting later age at first screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 19(7); 1675–81. ©2010 AACR.

Introduction

Relatively few large case series describe the human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes found in women diagnosed with rigorously reviewed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3), the immediate precursor lesion to invasive cervical cancer. CIN3 is considered a definite precancer and is the best surrogate for cancer risk. It is a critical end point for evaluating the efficacy of primary and secondary prevention strategies.

We had previously described in detail the HPV genotypes detected in enrollment specimens collected from women participants in the Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance (ASCUS) and Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion (LSIL) Triage Study (ALTS; refs. 1-3). However, details about the HPV genotypes detected at the time of diagnosis of CIN3, i.e., cervical precancer, have not been published. Because the exact onset of CIN3 development cannot be known, our previous analyses relied on the assumption that the cases of CIN3 detected within the 2-year study were prevalent, some detected immediately whereas others were missed and found only during follow-up or exit colposcopy. We recognize, however, that a small percentage of cases of CIN3 in a 2-year study are incident (2, 4); moreover, HPV18/45-related CIN3 are more difficult to identify in a single screen (5). We therefore sought to describe in brief the HPV genotypes detected in cervical specimens at the time of CIN3 diagnosis, using all of our available HPV genotyping testing to maximize analytic sensitivity (6), and to identify any factors that alter the fraction of positives for HPV16, the major genotype targeted by HPV vaccination that causes 50% or more of all cervical cancer (7).

Materials and Methods

Study design and population

The ALTS (1997-2001) was a multisite, randomized trial comparing three management strategies (immediate colposcopy, HPV triage, and conservative management) for women referred for ASCUS4 (n = 3,488) or LSIL (n = 1,572) conventional cytology (10-14). The National Cancer Institute and local institutional review boards approved the study, and all participants provided written, informed consent.

At enrollment and follow-up visits over the 2-year duration, all women underwent a pelvic examination with collection of two cervical specimens; the first specimen in PreservCyt for ThinPrep cytology (Cytyc Corporation, now Hologic) and the second in specimen transport medium (STM; Digene Corporation, now Qiagen). Women in all three arms of the study were re-evaluated by cytology every 6 months during the 2 years and sent to colposcopy if cytology was HSIL. An exit examination with colposcopy was scheduled for all women. We refer readers to other references for details on randomization, examination procedures, patient management, and laboratory and pathology methods (10-14).

HPV testing

Line blot assay was done on enrollment STM specimens as previously described (15) for the detection of 27 of 38 individual HPV genotypes (16, 17).

Aliquots of archived STM specimens from women diagnosed with CIN3 were retested using linear array, which tests for 37 of 38 HPV genotypes detected by line blot assay (excluding HPV57) as previously described (3). HPV16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, and 68 were defined as the carcinogenic HPV genotypes (18). We have previously shown that HPV genotype detection by linear array on specimen aliquots stored for approximately 8 to 12 years after they were collected was (a) well correlated with, but analytically more sensitive than, detection by line blot assay (3), and (b) the clinical performance for detection of CIN3 of linear array (for carcinogenic HPV in aggregate) was comparable with hc2 (19).

Statistical analyses

Any histologic CIN3 diagnosis by either the clinical center pathologists or the quality control pathology review during the 2-year study was included in this analysis. Thus, every CIN3 had a second diagnosis (by the other pathology review) that was categorized as CIN3, CIN2, or <CIN2. When the two reviews agreed, the CIN3 was called a “consensus diagnosis.” We calculated the prevalence of any HPV genotype, any carcinogenic genotype, the prevalence of multiple HPV genotypes and multiple carcinogenic HPV genotypes (among HPV positives), and the individual 37 HPV genotypes detected by line blot assay, linear array, or by either assay. We note that linear array detects HPV52 by inference, which we previously found to underestimate the presence of HPV52 (3). However, we observed in this set of test results that there was an excess of inferred HPV52-positive results that was associated with testing HPV16 positive (data not shown). We therefore relied on the line blot assay detection of HPV52 only.

Multiple HPV genotypes were so commonly detected in the cervical specimens collected from this population that we classified the HPV genotype detection hierarchically according to cancer risk (HPV risk group): HPV16, else HPV16 negative but positive for other carcinogenic HPV genotypes, else negative for all carcinogenic HPV genotypes but positive for noncarcinogenic HPV genotypes, else PCR negative. We used standard contingency table methods with a Fisher's exact or χ2 test to assess possible univariate associations of categorical variables with HPV risk group. The relationships of continuous variables (e.g., age at diagnosis) with HPV risk group were assessed with nonparametric ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis test.

Because the numbers of CIN3 cases in the categories of noncarcinogenic HPV and PCR negative were rare, we excluded these cases from the following analyses. A logistic regression model was used to calculate the odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) as a measure of association of relevant parameters with HPV16 (versus carcinogenic HPV genotypes excluding HPV16). Variables from the univariate analysis with a P value of ≤0.2 were considered as possible covariates and were added into the logistic regression model until a parsimonious model was achieved. Dose-response relationships (Ptrend) were assessed in logistic regression models by treating ordinal variables as continuous (which assumes a linear trend).

P values of <0.05 were considered statistically significant. STATA version 9.0 was used for statistical analyses.

Results

Of the 621 CIN3 diagnosed during the 2-year duration of the ALTS, cervical specimens collected at the screening visit immediately prior to diagnosis from 596 (96.0%) women were tested by line blot assay, 588 (94.7%) by linear array, and 576 (93.8%) by both tests; 608 (97.9%) were tested by line blot assay or linear array and defined our analytical set. The timing of diagnosis of the CIN3 was 54% at enrollment, 8% at 6 months, 6% at 12 months, 6% at 18 months, and 26% at 24 months. Of the 608 CIN3 included in this analysis, 601 (98.8%) cases were positive for any HPV genotype and 95.4% for any carcinogenic HPV genotype as detected by either or both HPV genotyping assays (Table 1). HPV16 (59.9%), HPV31 (18.1%), HPV52 (14.8%), HPV51 (14.0%), and HPV18 (13.2%) were the five most common HPV genotypes detected. When restricted to cases in which only one HPV genotype was detected (n = 128), HPV16 (47.7%), HPV31 (10.9%), HPV18 (7.0%), HPV52 (5.5%), and HPV58 (5.5%) were the five most common HPV genotypes detected; HPV66 (2.3%) was the most common noncarcinogenic HPV genotype detected singly. The median age of women who had multiple HPV genotypes detected was younger than those with a single HPV genotype (24 years versus 26 years, respectively, P = 0.0001).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

HPV genotypes detected by line blot assay, linear array, and either line blot assay or linear array, for all and single HPV genotypes in cervical specimens from women diagnosed with CIN3

When categorized according to HPV risk groups, 364 (59.9%) were HPV16 positive, 216 (35.5%) were positive for other carcinogenic HPV genotypes, 21 (3.5%) were positive for noncarcinogenic HPV genotypes, and 7 (1.2%) were PCR negative. The seven PCR-negative cases of CIN3 were older on average than the rest (median age of 40 years). Only one of these seven PCR-negative cases was a consensus diagnosis of CIN3, with three second diagnoses of <CIN2 and three of CIN2. Three of the seven PCR-negative cases had normal cytology as read on both pathology reviews, and two of six tested positive for carcinogenic HPV by Hybrid Capture 2 (Qiagen; data not shown).

Age at diagnosis (P = 0.0003), second diagnosis (P < 0.0005), cigarette smoking (P = 0.005), oral contraceptive use (P = 0.04), parity (P = 0.03), and the cytologic interpretation at the time of the CIN3 diagnosis (P < 0.0005) were crudely associated with the HPV risk group (Table 2). In particular, HPV16 was more common when the second diagnosis was also CIN3 (68%) compared with when the second diagnosis was CIN2 (53%) or <CIN2 (38%).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Characteristics of CIN3 by hierarchically defined HPV risk group: HPV16 > other carcinogenic HPV genotypes (Carc. excl. HPV16) > noncarcinogenic HPV > PCR negative

We used a logistic regression model to evaluate factors independently associated with being HPV16 positive versus other carcinogenic HPV genotypes (n = 580; Table 3). A consensus diagnosis of CIN3 was strongly associated with being a HPV16-positive CIN3 (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.5-6.4; P = 0.003); there was an increasing trend to find HPV16 associated with increasing severity of the second diagnosis (Ptrend < 0.0005). Younger age at diagnosis was associated with testing HPV16 (OR, 0.97 per year; 95% CI, 0.94-1.0; Ptrend = 0.04); using quartiles of age at diagnosis (≤21, 22-24, 25-28, and 29-70) yielded a similar pattern (Ptrend = 0.001). Current smoking (versus never smoked, OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.5; P = 0.03) was positively associated and multiparity (versus never pregnant, OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.35-0.93; P = 0.005) was negatively associated with testing HPV16 positive; among women who were ever pregnant (n = 424), increasing number of births marginally decreased the likelihood of testing HPV16 positive (Ptrend = 0.06), but few women in this relatively young study population had many births. Inclusion of the timing of the CIN3 diagnosis confirmed as previously shown (5) that HPV16-related CIN3 was diagnosed earlier than CIN3 related to other carcinogenic HPV genotypes but did not appreciably alter the association of other covariates with being HPV16 positive (data not shown). Oral contraceptive use was strongly, negatively associated with parity (P < 0.001) but was not significantly associated with being HPV16 positive after adjusting for other covariates and was excluded from the final analysis. Likewise, study arm and worst cytologic interpretation were not associated with being HPV16 after adjusting for the other covariates and were excluded from the final analysis.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Logistic regression model for detecting HPV16 versus other carcinogenic HPV genotypes in cervical specimens from women diagnosed with CIN3

Among those with any carcinogenic HPV genotype, the median age at diagnosis was younger among the HPV16 positive versus those positive for other carcinogenic HPV genotypes (23.5 versus 25 years, respectively, P = 0.0003). A similar pattern was observed when analysis was restricted to a single HPV genotype detected (24 versus 28 years, respectively, P = 0.01) and to only those with consensus CIN3 diagnoses (24 versus 25 years, respectively, P = 0.04). HPV16-positive CIN3 occurred at a younger age in all randomization arms compared with other carcinogenic HPV-positive CIN3. The median time since sexual debut to CIN3 diagnosis was significantly shorter for HPV16-positive compared with other carcinogenic HPV-positive CIN3 (7 versus 9 years, respectively, P = 0.004).

Discussion

CIN3 is the critical intermediate end point targeted by cervical cancer screening programs and in HPV vaccine trials. We were interested in determining the HPV genotypes detected by screening immediately before the CIN3 diagnosis and any factors that influence the distribution. We used a combination of HPV genotyping tests to maximize the analytic sensitivity. Virtually all were HPV positive (98.9%), and most of those that were HPV positive were positive for at least one of the carcinogenic HPV genotypes (96.5%). The high prevalence of multiple HPV genotypes detected in the cervical specimens highlighted the major limitation in this analysis: HPV genotyping was not done on the diagnostic tissue. Restricting to single HPV genotypes probably led to an underestimation, and hierarchically categorizing the HPV genotypes according to cancer risk probably led to an overestimation, of the fraction of CIN3 caused by HPV16.

Despite this limitation, we made several important observations. First, we found that the certainty of the CIN3 diagnosis influenced the proportion of women who tested positive for HPV16 at the visit proximal to the CIN3 diagnosis, confirming an earlier report from this study population based on detection of HPV16 in enrollment specimens restricted to those referred for an ASCUS Pap smear (20). This suggests that HPV genotype attribution of cervical precancer (7) will depend somewhat on its definition (4, 20, 21), with an increasing percentage of HPV16 positives as diagnostic certainty of precancer increases from HSIL cytology to CIN2, CIN2/3, CIN3, and finally confirmed CIN3 histology.

Smoking and parity influenced the proportion of HPV16 positives but in opposite directions: current smokers had more HPV16-related CIN3 and multiparous women had less. Both factors are considered cofactors for the development of cancer (22), and smoking has been shown to be associated with the development of precancerous lesions (23-25). There is no previous evidence, however, that these factors differentially influence HPV16 natural history versus other carcinogenic HPV genotypes in this population (24, 26). Smoking duration or intensity did not alter the association with being HPV16 positive (data not shown). These associations might be due to chance or related to an unknown effect of smoking or parity on the detection and diagnosis of HPV16-related CIN3 versus other carcinogenic HPV genotypes (27).

Finally, we observed that HPV16-positive CIN3 were diagnosed at a younger age than were other carcinogenic HPV-positive CIN3, even in the artificial circumstances of a clinical trial involving aggressive screening and management that led to early detection of very small CIN3 lesions (28, 29). Even when controlling for the study arm, which was related to the aggressiveness of the enrollment evaluation, the age of diagnosis was significantly younger for HPV16-positive CIN3 versus HPV16-negative CIN3. Likewise, the median time from age of sexual debut to the CIN3 diagnosis was shorter for HPV16-positive CIN3 than for the CIN3 positive from other carcinogenic HPV genotypes. An earlier study reported that the proportion of CIN2 and CIN3 related to HPV16 was greater in younger women than in older women (30). Another study found that the mean age of HPV16- and HPV18-related diagnoses of invasive cancer was five years younger than the mean age for cancers caused by other carcinogenic HPV genotypes, and the mean age of HPV16- and HPV18-related CIN3/carcinoma in situ diagnosis was not significantly lower than the mean age for CIN3/carcinoma in situ caused by other carcinogenic HPV genotypes (31). These findings are consistent with the unique carcinogenic potential of HPV16. Although HPV16 is more prevalent than any other single HPV genotype at any age, it is less prevalent than all other carcinogenic HPV genotypes combined, and therefore it seems an unlikely argument that the earlier diagnosis of HPV16-positive CIN3 compared with non–HPV16-positive CIN3 is due to the former being more common and therefore being acquired earlier after sexual debut. Alternatively, colposcopists may more easily identify HPV16-related lesions than lesions caused by other HPV genotypes (27). Or it could be some combination of the two: HPV16-related CIN3, being more aggressive, become larger sooner after the acquisition of the causal HPV16 infection and easier to identify at colposcopy at a younger age.

In conclusion, in populations vaccinated against HPV16 (and HPV18), the median age of CIN3 in women with ASCUS and LSIL cytology may shift to older ages. This suggests that cautious consideration of raising the age limit of first screen in vaccinated populations might be considered in the United States.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Acknowledgments

We thank the ALTS Group Investigators for their help in planning and conducting the trial.

Grant Support: The ALTS was supported by the National Cancer Institute, NIH Department of Health and Human Services contracts CN-55153, CN-55154, CN-55155, CN-55156, CN-55157, CN-55158, CN-55159, and CN-55105. Some of the equipment and supplies used in these studies were donated or provided at reduced cost by Digene Corporation, Gaithersburg, MD; Cytyc Corporation, Marlborough, MA; National Testing Laboratories, Fenton, MO; DenVu, Tucson, AZ; TriPath Imaging, Inc., Burlington, NC; and Roche Molecular Systems Inc., Alameda, CA. This research was supported (in part) by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Cancer Institute.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Footnotes

  • ↵4ASCUS under the 1991 Bethesda system (8) was slightly more inclusive, particularly of probable reactive changes and ASC-H (atypical squamous cells, cannot rule out high-grade intraepithelial lesion), than the ASC-US category of the 2001 Bethesda system (9).

  • Received March 8, 2010.
  • Revision received April 28, 2010.
  • Accepted May 10, 2010.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Castle PE,
    2. Solomon D,
    3. Schiffman M,
    4. Wheeler CM
    . Human papillomavirus type 16 infections and 2-year absolute risk of cervical precancer in women with equivocal or mild cytologic abnormalities. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1066–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Wheeler CM,
    2. Hunt WC,
    3. Schiffman M,
    4. Castle PE
    . Human papillomavirus genotypes and the cumulative 2-year risk of cervical precancer. J Infect Dis 2006;194:1291–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Castle PE,
    2. Gravitt PE,
    3. Solomon D,
    4. Wheeler CM,
    5. Schiffman M
    . Comparison of linear array and line blot assay for detection of human papillomavirus and diagnosis of cervical precancer and cancer in the atypical squamous cell of undetermined significance and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion triage study. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:109–17.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Castle PE,
    2. Cox JT,
    3. Jeronimo J,
    4. et al
    . An analysis of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA-negative cervical precancers in the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS). Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:847–56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Safaeian M,
    2. Schiffman M,
    3. Gage J,
    4. Solomon D,
    5. Wheeler CM,
    6. Castle PE
    . Detection of precancerous cervical lesions is differential by human papillomavirus type. Cancer Res 2009;69:3262–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Castle PE,
    2. Solomon D,
    3. Wheeler CM,
    4. Gravitt PE,
    5. Wacholder S,
    6. Schiffman M
    . Human papillomavirus genotype specificity of hybrid capture 2. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:2595–604.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Smith JS,
    2. Lindsay L,
    3. Hoots B,
    4. et al
    . Human papillomavirus type distribution in invasive cervical cancer and high-grade cervical lesions: a meta-analysis update. Int J Cancer 2007;121:621–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Kurman RJ,
    2. Malkasian GD Jr.,
    3. Sedlis A,
    4. Solomon D
    . From Papanicolaou to Bethesda: the rationale for a new cervical cytologic classification. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:779–82.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Solomon D,
    2. Davey D,
    3. Kurman R,
    4. et al
    . The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Schiffman M,
    2. Adrianza ME
    . ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. Design, methods and characteristics of trial participants. Acta Cytol 2000;44:726–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. Human papillomavirus testing for triage of women with cytologic evidence of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions: baseline data from a randomized trial. The Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance/Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions Triage Study (ALTS) Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:397–402.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS) Group. A randomized trial on the management of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology interpretations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1393–400.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ASCUS-LSIL Triage 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;188:1383–92.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Solomon D,
    2. Schiffman M,
    3. Tarone R
    . Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: baseline results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:293–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Schiffman M,
    2. Wheeler CM,
    3. Dasgupta A,
    4. Solomon D,
    5. Castle PE
    . A comparison of a prototype PCR assay and hybrid capture 2 for detection of carcinogenic human papillomavirus DNA in women with equivocal or mildly abnormal papanicolaou smears. Am J Clin Pathol 2005;124:722–32.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Gravitt PE,
    2. Peyton CL,
    3. Alessi TQ,
    4. et al
    . Improved amplification of genital human papillomaviruses. J Clin Microbiol 2000;38:357–61.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Peyton CL,
    2. Gravitt PE,
    3. Hunt WC,
    4. et al
    . Determinants of genital human papillomavirus detection in a US population. J Infect Dis 2001;183:1554–64.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Bouvard V,
    2. Baan R,
    3. Straif K,
    4. et al
    . A review of human carcinogens - Part B: biological agents. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:321–2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Gravitt PE,
    2. Schiffman M,
    3. Solomon D,
    4. Wheeler CM,
    5. Castle PE
    . A comparison of linear array and hybrid capture 2 for detection of carcinogenic human papillomavirus and cervical precancer in ASCUS-LSIL triage study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17:1248–54.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Castle PE,
    2. Schiffman M,
    3. Wheeler CM,
    4. Wentzensen N,
    5. Gravitt PE
    . Impact of improved classification on the association of human papillomavirus with cervical precancer. Am J Epidemiol 2010;171:155–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Castle PE,
    2. Cox JT,
    3. Schiffman M,
    4. Wheeler CM,
    5. Solomon D
    . Factors influencing histologic confirmation of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:637–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Castellsague X,
    2. Munoz N
    . Chapter 3: Cofactors in human papillomavirus carcinogenesis-role of parity, oral contraceptives, and tobacco smoking. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2003;31:20–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Hildesheim A,
    2. Herrero R,
    3. Castle PE,
    4. et al
    . HPV co-factors related to the development of cervical cancer: results from a population-based study in Costa Rica. Br J Cancer 2001;84:1219–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. McIntyre-Seltman K,
    2. Castle PE,
    3. Guido R,
    4. Schiffman M,
    5. Wheeler CM
    . Smoking is a risk factor for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 among oncogenic human papillomavirus DNA-positive women with equivocal or mildly abnormal cytology. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:1165–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Castle PE,
    2. Wacholder S,
    3. Lorincz AT,
    4. et al
    . A prospective study of high-grade cervical neoplasia risk among human papillomavirus-infected women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1406–14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Castle PE,
    2. Walker JL,
    3. Schiffman M,
    4. Wheeler CM
    . Hormonal contraceptive use, pregnancy and parity, and the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 among oncogenic HPV DNA-positive women with equivocal or mildly abnormal cytology. Int J Cancer 2005;117:1007–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Jeronimo J,
    2. Massad LS,
    3. Schiffman M
    . Visual appearance of the uterine cervix: correlation with human papillomavirus detection and type. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197:47–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Sherman ME,
    2. Wang SS,
    3. Tarone R,
    4. Rich L,
    5. Schiffman M
    . Histopathologic Extent of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia 3 Lesions in the Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance Low-grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Triage Study: Implications for Subject Safety and Lead-time Bias. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12:372–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Castle PE,
    2. Fetterman B,
    3. Akhtar I,
    4. et al
    . Age-appropriate use of human papillomavirus vaccines in the U S. Gynecol Oncol 2009;114:365–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Porras C,
    2. Rodriguez AC,
    3. Hildesheim A,
    4. et al
    . Human papillomavirus types by age in cervical cancer precursors: predominance of human papillomavirus 16 in young women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18:863–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Wheeler CM,
    2. Hunt WC,
    3. Joste NE,
    4. Key CR,
    5. Quint WG,
    6. Castle PE
    . Human papillomavirus genotype distributions: implications for vaccination and cancer screening in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:475–87.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 19 (7)
July 2010
Volume 19, Issue 7
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Human Papillomavirus Genotypes in Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 3
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Human Papillomavirus Genotypes in Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 3
Philip E. Castle, Mark Schiffman, Cosette M. Wheeler, Nicolas Wentzensen and Patti E. Gravitt
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev July 1 2010 (19) (7) 1675-1681; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0251

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Human Papillomavirus Genotypes in Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 3
Philip E. Castle, Mark Schiffman, Cosette M. Wheeler, Nicolas Wentzensen and Patti E. Gravitt
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev July 1 2010 (19) (7) 1675-1681; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0251
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Research Articles

  • Urinary Melatonin in Relation to Breast Cancer Risk
  • Endometrial Cancer and Ovarian Cancer Cross-Cancer GWAS
  • Risk Factors of Subsequent CNS Tumor after Pediatric Cancer
Show more Research Articles

Short Communication

  • Common Variants in High-Risk Pancreatic Cancer Patients
  • Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Asian Americans
  • Quality of Online Cancer-Related Clinical Trial Information
Show more Short Communication
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
eISSN: 1538-7755
ISSN: 1055-9965

Advertisement