Does HPV-18 co-infection increase the risk of cervical pathology in individuals with HPV-16?

Gökkaya, Mustafa; Alcı, Aysun; Aytekin, Okan; Unsal, Mehmet; ÇAKIR, Caner; Oktar, Okan; Yalcin, Necim; Kahraman, Alper; Tokalioglu, Alp; Ersak, Burak; Yıldırım, Hande; KOÇ, Sevgi; TOPTAŞ, Tayfun; Kilic, Fatih; Celik, Fatih; BORAN, Nurettin; ÜSTÜN, Yaprak; Tekin, Ozlem; KİMYON CÖMERT, Günsu; Korkmaz, Vakkas; Turan, Taner; ÜREYEN, Işın

doi:10.1111/cyt.13422

Does HPV-18 co-infection increase the risk of cervical pathology in individuals with HPV-16?

Gökkaya M., Alcı A., Aytekin O., Unsal M., ÇAKIR C., Oktar O., ...Daha Fazla

Cytopathology, cilt.35, sa.6, ss.757-760, 2024 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)

Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
Cilt numarası: 35 Sayı: 6
Basım Tarihi: 2024
Doi Numarası: 10.1111/cyt.13422
Dergi Adı: Cytopathology
Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
Sayfa Sayıları: ss.757-760
Anahtar Kelimeler: cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, co-infection, colposcopy, HPV-16, HPV-18
Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Objective: We aimed to investigate differences between HPV-16 mono- and HPV-16/18 co-infections in terms of cervical dysplasia and invasive cancer. Methods: This multicentre, retrospective study spanned from December 2017 to December 2020, involving women who visited gynaecological oncology clinics for colposcopy with either HPV-16 or HPV-16/18 positivity. A total of 736 patients, 670 in Group 1 (HPV-16 positivity) and 66 in Group 2 (HPV-16/18 positivity), were compared for the presence of CIN2+ lesions detected by colposcopic biopsy or endocervical curettage (ECC). Exclusions included hysterectomized patients, those with prior gynaecological cancers, and patients with HPV positivity other than types 16 and 18. Results: Among the included patients, 42.4% had a diagnosis of CIN2+ lesions. The cytology results demonstrated abnormal findings in 45.3% in Group 1 and 42.2% in Group 2, with no significant difference between the groups. ECC revealed CIN2+ lesion in 49 (8.7%) patients in group 1, while only 1 (1.7%) patient had CIN2+ lesion in group 2. There was no difference between 2 groups in terms of ECC result (p = 0.052). In group 1, 289 (43.1%) patients had CIN2+ lesion, while 23 (34.8%) patients had CIN2+ lesions in group 2. There was no difference between group 1 and 2 in terms of diagnosis of CIN2+ lesions (p = 0.19). Conclusion: This multicentre retrospective study found no significant differences between HPV-16 mono- and HPV-16/18 co-infections regarding cervical pathologies. Larger studies are needed to validate and further explore these findings.