Does HPV‐18 co‐infection increase the risk of cervical pathology in individuals with HPV‐16?
Mustafa Gökkaya,Aysun Alcı,Okan Aytekin,Mehmet Unsal,Caner Cakır,Okan Oktar,Necim Yalcin,Alper Kahraman,Alp Tokalioglu,Burak Ersak,Hande Esra Koca Yıldırım,Sevgi Koc,Tayfun Toptas,Fatih Kilic,Fatih Celik,Nurettin Boran,Yaprak Ustun,Ozlem Moraloglu Tekin,Gunsu Kimyon Comert,Vakkas Korkmaz,Taner Turan,Isin Ureyen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cyt.13422
2024-07-13
Cytopathology
Abstract:In this study, 40.9% and 31.8% of patients in HPV16 and HPV16/18 groups, respectively, had CIN2+ lesions. 2.2% and 3.0% of patients in HPV16 and HPV16/18 groups, respectively, had cancer. Gokkaya et al. reported 40.9% for CIN2+ lesions and 2.2% for cancer in HPV16‐positive patients. The ratios were 31.8% and 3.0%, respectively, in HPV16/18‐positive patients. 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.
pathology,cell biology