دوره 5، شماره 4 - ( 4-1386 )                   جلد 5 شماره 4 صفحات 102-99 | برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها

XML English Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

M. Ragab Shalaby A, Shalaby A M, Naguib S M. Comparative study of human papilloma virus DNA detection and results of histopathological examination of cervical colposcopic biopsy. IJRM 2007; 5 (4) :99-102
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-76-fa.html
Comparative study of human papilloma virus DNA detection and results of histopathological examination of cervical colposcopic biopsy. International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine 1386; 5 (4) :102-99

URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-76-fa.html


چکیده:   (1519 مشاهده)
Background: There is mounting evidence for HPV involvement in cervical cancer Human Papilloma Virus DNA is detected by hybridization techniques in 75 – 100% of patients with condylomas, precancerous cervical dysplasia, and invasive carcinoma.
Objective: The aim of this study was investigating factors that may contribute to false-negative colposcopic biopsy results in positive high-risk HPV DNA results.
Material and Methods: Patients positive for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA with negative cervical histopathologic findings were examined between January 2004 and August 2006.
Results: Patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC) in Papanicolaou smears, with positive HPV DNA results, but negative cervical histopathologic findings accounted for 4.5% of all ASC smears submitted for HPV DNA testing. We found 4% of the cases had focal HPV infection or mild dysplasia. When serial sectioning of the biopsy material were examined, we found that 29% had clinically significant lesions: HPV infection or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia CIN 1, 18%; CIN II/III, 8%; and dysplasia, not otherwise specified (which we can not categorize into any group), 3%. Of the remaining patients, follow-up revealed squamous abnormalities in 25%. About 5% of patients with positive HPV DNA results had a negative follow-up biopsy result. "False-negative" biopsies accounted for one third of cases.
Conclusion: In almost one third of cases, clinically significant lesions were found when additional levels were examined.
نوع مطالعه: Original Article |

فهرست منابع
1. Neal MH, Wilbur DC, Davey DD. Bethesda 2001 implementation and reporting rates: 2003 practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2004;128:1224-1229.
2. Kinney WK, Hurley LB, Manos MM. Identifying women with cervical neoplasia: using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results. JAMA 1999;281:1605-1610. [DOI:10.1001/jama.281.17.1605]
3. 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;188:1383-1392. [DOI:10.1067/mob.2003.457]
4. Buntinx F, Van Ranst M, Arbyn M. Virologic versus cytologic triage of women with equivocal Pap smears: a meta-analysis of the accuracy to detect high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:280-293. [DOI:10.1093/jnci/djh037]
5. Wright TC, Goldie SJ. Cost-effectiveness of alternative triage strategies for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. JAMA 2002;287:2382-2390. [DOI:10.1001/jama.287.18.2382]
6. Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS. 2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 2002;287:2120-2129. [DOI:10.1001/jama.287.16.2120]
7. Anderson MB, Jones BA. False positive cervicovaginal cytology: a follow-up study. Acta Cytol 1997;41:1697-1700. [DOI:10.1159/000333170]
8. Tritz DM, Weeks JA, Spires SE. Etiologies for non-correlating cervical cytologies and biopsies. Am J Clin Pathol 1995;103:594-597. [DOI:10.1093/ajcp/103.5.594]
9. Herrero R. Sexual behavior, Venereal diseases, Hygiene practices and invasive cervical cancer in a high risk population. Cancer 1990;65:380-386. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19900115)65:2<380::AID-CNCR2820650234>3.0.CO;2-9 [DOI:10.1002/1097-0142(19900115)65:23.0.CO;2-9]
10. CLIA. Cytology: Section 493.1274. 2005. Available at: http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/clia/regs/subpart_k.aspx#493.1274. Accessed June 28, 2005.
11. Jones BA, Novis DA. Cervical biopsy-cytology correlation: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 22 439 correlations in 348 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1996;120:523-531.
12. Koss LG. The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection; a triumph and a tragedy. JAMA 1989;261:737-743. [DOI:10.1001/jama.1989.03420050087046]
13. Kraemer BB. Quality assurance activities of the College of American Pathologists. Acta Cytol 1989;33:434-438.
14. Rohr LR. Quality assurance in gynecologic cytology: what is practical? Am J Clin Pathol 1990;94:754-758. [DOI:10.1093/ajcp/94.6.754]
15. DiBonito L, Falconieri G, Tomasic G. Cervical cytopathology: an evaluation of its accuracy based on cytohistologic comparison. Cancer 1993;72:3002-3006. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19931115)72:10<3002::AID-CNCR2820721023>3.0.CO;2-4 [DOI:10.1002/1097-0142(19931115)72:103.0.CO;2-4]
16. Dodd LG, Sneige N, Villarreal Y. Quality-assurance study of simultaneously sampled, non-correlating cervical cytology and biopsies. Diagn Cytopathol 1993;9:138-144. [DOI:10.1002/dc.2840090206]
17. Crum CP, Cibas ES. Cytologic/histologic correlation for quality control in cervicovaginal cytology: experience with 1,582 paired cases. Am J Clin Pathol 1995;103:32-34. [DOI:10.1093/ajcp/103.1.32]
18. McCord ML, Stovall TG, Summitt RL Jr. Discrepancy of cervical cytology and colposcopic biopsy: is cervical conization necessary? Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:715-719.
19. Coste J, Sastre-Garau X, de Cremoux P. Efficiency of the Hybrid Capture 2 HPV DNA test in cervical cancer screening: a study by the French Society of Clinical Cytology. Am J Clin Pathol 2003;120:492-499. [DOI:10.1309/XFUCPP6M5XUA94B8]
20. Ferris DG, Litaker M. Interobserver agreement for colposcopy quality control using digitized colposcopic images during the ALTS trial. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2005;9:29-35. [DOI:10.1097/00128360-200501000-00007]
21. Ismail SM, Colclough AB, Dinnen JS. Observer variation in histopathological diagnosis and grading of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. BMJ 1989;298:707-710. [DOI:10.1136/bmj.298.6675.707]
22. Klinkhamer PJ, Vooijs GP, de Haan AF. Intraobserver and interobserver variability in the diagnosis of epithelial abnormalities in cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1988;32:794-800.
23. Parker MF, Zahn CM, Vogel KM. Discrepancy in the interpretation of cervical histology by gynecologic pathologists. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:277-280. [DOI:10.1097/00006250-200208000-00013]
24. Stoler MH, Schiffman M; Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance-Low-Grade Squamous Intra-epithelial Lesion Triage Study (ALTS) Group. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA 2001;285:1500-1505. [DOI:10.1001/jama.285.11.1500]
25. Schiffman M, Solomon D. Prospective follow-up suggests similar risk of subsequent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or negative colposcopy and directed biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1406-1412. [DOI:10.1067/mob.2003.461]
26. Schiffman M, Solomon D, Guido R. Postcolposcopy management strategies for women referred with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or human papillomavirus DNA-positive atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: a two-year prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1401-1405. [DOI:10.1067/mob.2003.456]
27. Ho GY, Bierman R, Beardsley L. Natural history of cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women. N Engl J Med 1998;338:423-428. [DOI:10.1056/NEJM199802123380703]
28. Collins S, Winter H, Woodman CB. Natural history of cervical human papillomavirus infection in young women: a longitudinal cohort study. Lancet 2001;357:1831-1836. [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04956-4]
29. Nasiell K, Nasiell M, Vaclavinkova V. Behavior of moderate cervical dysplasia during long-term follow-up. Obstet Gynecol 1983;61:609-614.
30. Richart RM, Barron BA. A follow-up study of patients with cervical dysplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1969;105:386-393. [DOI:10.1016/0002-9378(69)90268-3]
31. Koutsky LA, Ault KA, Wheeler CM; Proof of Principle Study Investigators. A controlled trial of a human papillomavirus type 16 vaccine. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1645-1651. [DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa020586]
32. Harper DM, Franco EL, Wheeler C. For the GlaxoSmithKline HPV Vaccine Study Group. Efficacy of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine in prevention of infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004;364:1757-1765. [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17398-4]
33. Villa LL, Costa RL, Petta CA. Prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 virus-like particle vaccine in young women: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre phase II efficacy trial. Lancet Oncol 2005;6:271-278. [DOI:10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70101-7]
34. Mao C, Koutsky LA, Ault KA. Efficacy of human papillomavirus-16 vaccine to prevent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:18-27. [DOI:10.1097/01.AOG.0000192397.41191.fb]

بازنشر اطلاعات
Creative Commons License این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است.

کلیه حقوق این وب سایت متعلق به International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine می باشد.

طراحی و برنامه نویسی : یکتاوب افزار شرق

© 2023 CC BY-NC 4.0 | International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb