| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Regular Articles |
Department of Medical Epidemiology, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden [N. Y., P. Sp., H-O. A.]; Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, 2300 Copenhagen, Denmark [M. M., P. Sö., M. F., P. K. A.]; Department of Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, 751 23 Uppsala, Sweden [A. J., M. G., P. M., J. P., U. G.]; Department of Epidemiology, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115 [H-O. A.]
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONSUBJECTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONSUBJECTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Although viral persistence seems to be crucial for the development of cervical neoplasia (4, 5, 6, 7) , the mechanisms for viral persistence remain largely unknown (8 , 9) . Because most earlier epidemiological studies had a case-control design (1 , 9) , they determined HPV status only at the time of diagnosis of the cases, whereas HPV persistence can be studied only in prospective studies. Few such prospective studies have been performed, and they have generally been small, have had short follow-up, have been carried out among highly selected groups of women, and have studied dysplasia rather than invasive carcinoma of the cervix or its immediate precursor, carcinoma in situ (1 , 4, 5, 6 , 10 , 11) . Although results from these studies have been confirmatory, questions remain about persistence, recurrence, and the incubation period between infection and neoplastic development.
In the present study, we took advantage of the favorable conditions for follow-up studies in Sweden to examine the temporal association between HPV16 infection and cervical carcinoma in situ. This was done by analyzing archival smears, taken repeatedly up to 26 years before diagnosis of cervical carcinoma in situ from cases and matched controls, nested in a population-based cohort of women participating in cytological screening in Sweden.
|
SUBJECTS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONSUBJECTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
All incident cases (n = 504) of squamous cell cervical carcinoma in situ in the cohort were identified through computerized linkage between the study cohort and the virtually 100% complete National Cancer Registry from 1969 through 1995 (14) . Notification to the registry is mandatory both for in situ and invasive cervical cancer (15) . For each case, five controls, individually matched by date of first registered smear (±90 days) and by year of birth, were randomly selected from the study cohort. We did not match on number of smears because this variable is likely associated with sexual practices (e.g., the need for contraceptives, or treatment for sexually transmitted diseases) and hence with the probability of HPV infection.
Eligible controls had no history of in situ or invasive
cervical carcinoma or any known hysterectomy before the date of
diagnosis for their corresponding matched case; information about
hysterectomy was obtained during telephone interviews with 
85% of
the participants (13)
. Among the controls, eight
(2%) had undergone hysterectomy before the diagnosis of carcinoma
in situ of their corresponding case and were subsequently
excluded together with their matched case. Because we did not match on
number of smears, some first controls, randomly selected from the set
of five, had only one smear taken during the study period. In such
instances, we included a second control, randomly chosen from the
remaining matched controls originally selected, to increase statistical
power.
Cytological and Histological Review.
The first smears for all eligible cases and controls were reviewed by a
skilled cytotechnician, blinded to the case-control status. Cases
regarded as not having a normal first smear (PAP = 1)
were excluded. Controls without a normal first smear were replaced by
another randomly selected control.
To confirm the diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma in situ, the histological specimens from all 504 incident cases in the cohort were reviewed, except for 54 where the specimens could not be found. After review, we excluded five cases (three with invasive adenocarcinoma and two with microinvasive squamous cell carcinoma) and their matched controls. Each case and her matched control(s) constituted a risk set. After cytological and histological review, the study group consisted of 495 risk sets, including 495 cases, 495 first controls, and 154 second controls.
HPV Analyses.
All smears from eligible cases and controls during the period from
entry into the cohort until the date of the case’s diagnosis of
cervical carcinoma in situ were analyzed for HPV. To
determine HPV status more accurately for each control at the time of
carcinoma in situ diagnosis in their matched case, we also,
when available, included the controls’ first smear taken after the
carcinoma in situ diagnosis of the cases. Before analyses,
all smears were sorted according to risk set and coded. Thus, those who
performed the analyses were blinded to the case-control status. All
smears in a risk set were analyzed at the same time.
After DNA extraction by described methods (16 , 17) , we analyzed the smears for HPV with a quantitative PCR system, based on real-time detection of accumulated fluorescence (TaqMan), using the 5'-exonuclease assay with a nonextendible hybridization probe with fluorescent dye linked to both the 5' and 3' ends (18 , 19) . When the probe is intact, the emission from the 5' dye is quenched by the 3' dye. During the extension phase of the PCR, the Taq polymerase cleaves the hybridization probe, producing a fluorescent signal proportional to the amount of PCR product generated. The sensitivity of the PCR system for analyses of archival smears was largely dependent on the DNA quality and the potential presence of inhibitors during the PCR reaction. The addition of BSA to the PCR reaction removed the inhibition caused by the Pap stain, thus yielding a sensitivity comparable to high molecular weight DNA. The characteristics of this PCR-based assay for HPV typing have been described in detail elsewhere (17) . To prevent contamination during DNA extraction and PCR analysis, we used dedicated rooms for these procedures. The PCR was prepared in a room with one area for clean reagents (without DNA) and another for adding DNA template to the PCR reagents. PCR amplifications were performed in a second room. Our single-tube nested system did not require opening the tubes between the PCR reactions, further minimizing the risk of cross-contamination.
All smears were analyzed for the presence of HPV16 by amplification of a 180-bp fragment of the E1 open-reading frame in the presence of an HPV16-specific fluorescent hybridization probe (17 , 20) . In addition, the amplification of a human gene fragment (294 bp) from the ß-actin locus indicated whether HPV16-negative samples were falsely negative because of an insufficient amount of DNA for amplification. Hence, smears testing negative for both ß-actin and HPV16 were excluded (325 smears for cases, 358 smears for controls), but smears negative for ß-actin and positive for HPV16 were not (137 smears for cases, 28 smears for controls). Consequently, 11 risk sets were lost because either the case or both controls had no usable smears. For the remaining statistical analyses, we had 484 risk sets, including 484 cases, 484 first controls, and 135 second controls.
Statistical Analyses.
The association between HPV16 and time before diagnosis was considered
separately among cases and controls. For each case, we used the
longitudinal HPV data to generate response variables indicating HPV16
status in different time intervals before diagnosis: 1 if one or more
HPV16-positive smears; 0 if only HPV16-negative smears; and missing if
no smears in a certain time interval. The probability of being
HPV16-positive was then estimated in a model with HPV16 status in the
different time intervals as dependent variables. Because of the
possible correlation between responses from the same individual, the
probability was estimated using generalized estimating equations (GEE
method) with the autoregressive (AR-1) correlation structure in a
logistic regression model. Tests for linearity of the effect of time
were performed using the fact that estimates of time effects are
asymptotically normally distributed (21)
. Among controls,
we considered the relationship between prevalence of HPV16 and age at
the time of smear. In each age group (<20, 20–24, 25–29, 30–34,
35–39, 
40 years), we generated response variables indicating HPV16
status, using the same definition as described for cases. The
probability of being HPV16-positive for the controls was then estimated
in a model with HPV16 status in the different age groups as dependent
variables, again using the GEE method in a logistic regression model.
Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals served as measures of
relative risk. Using conditional logistic regression
(22)
, we analyzed the risk association between
HPV16 positivity in the first smear and cervical carcinoma in
situ, stratified by age at time of first smear (<25, 25–29, 30
years). In addition, among women having two or more smears, we
estimated the relationship between risk of cervical carcinoma in
situ and HPV16 status in the last two smears taken before
diagnosis, again using conditional logistic regression.
To relate the risk association between HPV16 positivity at different
years before diagnosis and cervical carcinoma in situ, we
used the following multiple imputation method: For each woman, the
probability of being HPV16-positive at different years t
before diagnosis was estimated based on the average of the four (or
fewer) closest smears in a selected neighborhood around the year
t considered. If
t1–tk
denote time points before diagnosis and
HPV1–HPVk denote the
corresponding HPV16 status, and HPVi = 1 if the smear is positive and HPVi = 0
if negative, then estimates of the probability were:
 |
where the sum is taken over the four (or fewer) closest smears in
the chosen neighborhood (± 4 years) around the year t and
di = |ti - t| is
the absolute distance. In neighborhoods with no smears, the probability
was defined as missing. For each case and control, estimation was
performed separately for values of t varying from 1 to 15
years before diagnosis or until time of first smear. In Fig. 1
we give an example of how the probability P(t)
was estimated. For each year, the estimated probability
P(t) of being HPV16-positive was used to generate
a single binary exposure variable, Z(t), which
took the value 1 with probability P(t) and 0
otherwise (missing if missing probability). Using conditional logistic
regression model with the covariate Z(t), we
analyzed the risk association between cervical carcinoma in
situ and HPV16 status separately for each year before diagnosis.
The simulation procedure was performed 100 times, and the estimated
risk association between HPV16 positivity at different years before
diagnosis and carcinoma in situ was the average of the
separate estimates. The variance of the estimated risk was calculated
as the average of within-imputation variance plus the
between-imputation variance (23)
. Confidence intervals
were then assigned as usual. To evaluate the robustness of the results,
different neighborhoods were applied (± 3 year, no restriction). This
did not affect the results.
|
35 years). We used SAS procedures PHREG (24) for conditional logistic regression analyses, GENMOD (25) for GEE analyses, and LIFETEST (26) for Kaplan-Meier estimates.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONSUBJECTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
. The cases and their first controls had a median age at diagnosis of 35
years (range, 20–70 years) and were followed for a median time of 8
years (range, <1 to 25 years). The second controls had a median age of
34 years and were followed for a median time of 5 years. The total
number of smears analyzed for HPV16 was 4034: 2228 for the cases
(median, 4; range, 1–25); 1479 for the first controls (median, 2;
range, 1–15); and 327 for the second controls (median, 2; range,
1–7). As seen in Table 1
, the majority of smears in surplus among
cases were taken as confirmatory smears during the last year before the
diagnosis of carcinoma in situ was established. In the other
time intervals, the distribution of smears among cases and first
controls were more similar. Therefore, in all subsequent analyses of
the risk association between HPV16 and cervical carcinoma in
situ, except for the analyses of HPV16 status in the first smear,
we disregarded smears taken during the last year before diagnosis. The
total number of HPV16-positive smears was 922 for the cases, 120 for
the first controls, and 20 for the second controls (Table 1)
.
|
. Approximately 16–18 years before diagnosis of carcinoma in
situ, the probability of HPV16 positivity among cases did not
differ from the estimated background prevalence of 0.10 in the control
group, whereas immediately before diagnosis, the probability had
increased to 0.56. We accepted the test for linearity of the time
effect (on logit-scale), and the test for trend was highly significant
(P < 0.0001).
|
90%), neither smoking status (ever
versus never or current versus ex- or nonsmokers)
nor oral contraceptive use (never versus ever or current
versus ex- or nonusers) before diagnosis affected the
probability of being HPV16-positive at different time intervals (data
not shown).
Risk Associations.
We examined the association between HPV16 status in the first smear
(taken at the same time point before diagnosis for cases and their
matched controls) and the risk for cervical carcinoma in
situ, stratifying by age at time of first smear. Regardless of
age, having an HPV16-positive first smear was related to a more than
5-fold increased risk for a subsequent diagnosis of cervical carcinoma
in situ (Table 2)
.
|
. An almost 10-fold increased risk was
observed among women who initially had a negative smear and a
subsequent positive smear, compared with HPV16-negative women.
Infection with HPV16 in both smears was associated with a substantially
increased risk of 31.2 (95% confidence interval, 10.6–91.8).
Subsequently, we calculated risk estimates for each year before
diagnosis, using the multiple imputation method. Regardless of whether
the analyses were performed without restrictions or with restrictions
in certain time windows, a fairly consistent trend was observed. The
HPV16-positive individuals were at increased risk up to 13 years before
diagnosis (Fig. 3)
. Adjustment for potential confounding by smoking, oral contraceptive
use, and number of sexual partners among the interviewed subjects did
not affect risk estimates materially (data not shown).
|
, the time since first HPV16-positive smear is indicated among cases,
stratified according to age at diagnosis (<35, 35 years). Among
women 35 years at diagnosis, 50% had become HPV16-positive
between 7 and 12 years before diagnosis. The corresponding estimated
incubation period for women diagnosed before age 35 was 5–8 years.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONSUBJECTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
To overcome these difficulties, we used archival smears, taken repeatedly up to 26 years before diagnosis of carcinoma in situ, from case women and matched control women nested in a population-based cohort of women attending cytological screening in Sweden. Because of the nested design, our study preserves the validity of the underlying cohort study. Furthermore, HPV analyses were performed with a highly sensitive PCR-based system, by personnel blinded for case-control status. Since contamination is unlikely because of stringent procedures for DNA extraction and HPV analyses and because the HPV detection system has a high sensitivity and specificity, we chose to include ß-actin-negative smears that were HPV16-positive in the analyses. Indeed, our risk estimates did not change when all ß-actin-negative smears were excluded from the analyses (data not shown). Furthermore, we had detailed covariate information on a large proportion of the women (13) , which enabled us to adjust at each year before diagnosis for the potential confounding influence of smoking, oral contraceptive use, and number of sexual partners. Potential limitations include missing information regarding hysterectomy for approximately one-third of the controls. However, we have no reason to believe that these women would differ with respect to prevalence of hysterectomy from the interviewed women, among whom only 2% (8 of 422) had undergone a hysterectomy. This implies that approximately five included, not interviewed controls may received hysterectomies. It is unlikely that inclusion of these controls has affected the risk estimates.
The cases had more registered smears than the controls. Reassuringly, the difference in number of smears was largely explained by the large number of confirmatory smears among the cases taken during the last year before diagnosis. By excluding all smears registered during the last year from the analyses of the risk associations, we reduced potential bias attributable to higher probability for HPV detection among cases. Furthermore, we used a multiple imputation method to determine HPV16 status at a given time point, thus taking into consideration and controlling for the fact that cases and their matched controls had smears taken at different time points before diagnosis. Consequently, we were able to maintain a matched approach in our risk estimations, preserving the power obtained by using all risk sets.
Our finding of HPV16 DNA in 56% of carcinomas in situ at the time of diagnosis is in line with previous studies both on in situ and invasive cervical carcinomas (3) . In recent years, a few prospective studies with short follow-up have indicated that persistent, rather than transient, infection with oncogenic HPV types is associated with increased risk for cervical carcinoma in situ (4, 5, 6) . In our population-based study where information on HPV status had been collected up to 26 years before diagnosis, we found strong evidence that persistent and/or recurrent infection with HPV16 is associated with substantially higher risk than occasional infection. Thus, having an HPV16-positive first smear, on average 8 years before diagnosis, increased risk more than 5-fold, whereas having an HPV16-positive last smear increased risk almost 10-fold and being HPV16-positive in the last two smears increased risk 30-fold. In line with these findings, persistent and/or recurrent infection was a rare observation among our control women who did not develop carcinoma in situ. In a recent case-control study by Wallin et al. (27) , HPV DNA status was established in PAP smears before diagnosis of invasive cervical carcinoma. Similar to our results, a positive HPV status in both the first and last samples was associated with a highly increased risk. Moreover, Wallin et al. (27) detected the same HPV type in the first smear and the biopsy specimens in all case women with positive HPV status at entry, further supporting the hypothesis that viral persistence is crucial for cervical carcinogenesis.
Factors associated with the establishment of persistent infection may explain why HPV infection is such a common sexually transmitted disease among young women (28) and why so few of these women ever develop carcinoma in situ and ultimately invasive cervical cancer (29) . However, the determinants of persistence are still largely unknown. The typically successful control of HPV infection appears to depend on the interaction between the virus, the infected host cells, and the host immune system (30 , 31) . Probably the most convincing evidence that the immune system plays a central role comes from studies of women infected with HIV and those undergoing renal transplantation. With increasing immunosuppression, these women develop high prevalences of oncogenic HPV infections and subsequently carcinoma in situ (1 , 32) . Logically, behavioral cofactors for HPV persistence should exist as well, but there presently are few data to support this assumption. In particular, exogenous factors such as cigarette smoking and oral contraceptive use have been mentioned, but not conclusively settled, as cofactors influencing HPV persistence (4, 5, 6) . In our study, risk estimates were not affected by adjustment at each year before diagnosis for smoking behavior and oral contraceptive use.
It has long been suspected that the time from HPV infection to carcinoma in situ may be several years, but to date no study has ever been able to more precisely estimate the length of this period. In our study, HPV16-positive women were already at increased risk of being diagnosed with cervical carcinoma in situ 13–15 years before they were actually diagnosed. However, because HPV16 had only been measured at a limited number of time points before diagnosis, we cannot exclude the possibility that some women seemingly having persistent infection may have lost the virus and subsequently become reinfected by the same viral type during the interval between smears. Thus, based on our results, we cannot conclude whether the higher frequency of HPV16 infection seen among cases so many years before diagnosis is the result of persistent infection or reinfection with HPV16. This problem of interpretation can be reduced, but not eliminated, through more frequent HPV measurements in a prospective study. However, only by studying the microheterogeneity of HPV16 detected in the smears can we be sure that the same HPV16 subtype has persisted over a long period. On the other hand, in favor of persistence are our findings that adjustment for sexual activity at each time point before diagnosis of carcinoma in situ had no effect on either the prevalence of HPV among cases or the risk association between cases and controls.
We acknowledge that our attempt to estimate an incubation period for case women who were HPV16-positive at diagnosis can be criticized. This period may be underestimated because HPV16 infection is likely to be present some time before detection, but it could also be overestimated because carcinoma in situ, an asymptomatic condition, may exist some time before detection. The net result of these two competing mechanisms is presently unknown. Nevertheless, we feel confident in our incubation estimates because of the close concordance between the values obtained by two extreme definitions for time of initial HPV infection. Younger case women are bound to have had, on average, a faster progression to carcinoma in situ than older women simply because of shorter interval from start of exposure. In contrast, many women 35 years or older are likely to have passed their sexually most active years with different partners and thus the period at highest risk of exposure to HPV16. In this latter group of women, the average incubation period from HPV16 infection to carcinoma in situ was estimated to be between 7 and 12 years. However, for 20% of the women, the incubation period may have been 15 years or longer.
In conclusion, our data imply that infection with HPV16 is associated with a highly increased risk of cervical carcinoma in situ, detectable up to 13 years before diagnosis. The risk increased dramatically among women with persistent or recurrent HPV16 infection in two sequential smears. We estimate that the average incubation period from initial HPV16 infection to diagnosis of carcinoma in situ is between 7 and 12 years but that it may be up to two decades for some women.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
1 This work was supported by a grant from the NIH,
Bethesda, MD (NR 1 RO1 CA61197-01A3), by grants from the Swedish Cancer
Society, and by the Danish National Science Foundation. 
2 To whom requests for reprints should be
addressed, at Department of Medical Epidemiology, Karolinska
Institutet, Box 281, S-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden. Phone: 46 8 728 6140;
Fax: 46 8 314957; E-mail: Nathalie.Ylitalo{at}mep.ki.se
4 These two investigators have contributed equally
to this work.
5 The abbreviation used is: HPV, human
papillomavirus.
Received 4/12/00. Accepted 9/ 1/00.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONSUBJECTS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Saunier, S. Monnier-Benoit, F. Mauny, V. Dalstein, J. Briolat, D. Riethmuller, B. Kantelip, E. Schwarz, C. Mougin, and J.-L. Pretet Analysis of Human Papillomavirus Type 16 (HPV16) DNA Load and Physical State for Identification of HPV16-Infected Women with High-Grade Lesions or Cervical Carcinoma J. Clin. Microbiol., November 1, 2008; 46(11): 3678 - 3685. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Koshiol, L. Lindsay, J. M. Pimenta, C. Poole, D. Jenkins, and J. S. Smith Persistent Human Papillomavirus Infection and Cervical Neoplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Am. J. Epidemiol., July 15, 2008; 168(2): 123 - 137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Koshiol, C. Poole, H. Chu, J. M. Pimenta, L. Lindsay, D. Jenkins, and J. S. Smith The Authors Respond to "HPV Persistence and Cervical Cancer Screening" Am. J. Epidemiol., July 15, 2008; 168(2): 145 - 148. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S Bulk, L Rozendaal, G D Zielinski, J Berkhof, N C F. Daalmeijer, P J F Snijders, F J van Kemenade, and C J L M Meijer High-risk human papillomavirus is present in cytologically false-negative smears: an analysis of "normal" smears preceding CIN2/3 J. Clin. Pathol., March 1, 2008; 61(3): 385 - 389. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. J. Wiley, E. Wiesmeier, E. Masongsong, K. H. Gylys, L. A. Koutsky, D. G. Ferris, E. Barr, J. Yu Rao, and The Proof of Principle Study Investigative Group Smokers at higher risk for undetected antibody for oncogenic human papillomavirus type 16 infection. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2006; 15(5): 915 - 920. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S-M A Kulmala, S M Syrjanen, U B Gyllensten, I P Shabalova, N Petrovichev, P Tosi, K J Syrjanen, and B C Johansson Early integration of high copy HPV16 detectable in women with normal and low grade cervical cytology and histology J. Clin. Pathol., May 1, 2006; 59(5): 513 - 517. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. N. Burchell, H. Richardson, S. M. Mahmud, H. Trottier, P. P. Tellier, J. Hanley, F. Coutlee, and E. L. Franco Modeling the Sexual Transmissibility of Human Papillomavirus Infection using Stochastic Computer Simulation and Empirical Data from a Cohort Study of Young Women in Montreal, Canada Am. J. Epidemiol., March 15, 2006; 163(6): 534 - 543. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. F. Schlecht, R. W. Platt, A. Negassa, E. Duarte-Franco, T. E. Rohan, A. Ferenczy, L. L. Villa, and E. L. Franco Modeling the Time Dependence of the Association between Human Papillomavirus Infection and Cervical Cancer Precursor Lesions Am. J. Epidemiol., November 1, 2003; 158(9): 878 - 886. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Molano, A. van den Brule, M. Plummer, E. Weiderpass, H. Posso, A. Arslan, C. J. L. M. Meijer, N. Munoz, and S. Franceschi Determinants of Clearance of Human Papillomavirus Infections in Colombian Women with Normal Cytology: A Population-based, 5-Year Follow-up Study Am. J. Epidemiol., September 1, 2003; 158(5): 486 - 494. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Iftner and L. L. Villa Chapter 12: Human Papillomavirus Technologies J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, June 1, 2003; 2003(31): 80 - 88. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. P. Crum, D. W. Abbott, and B. J. Quade Cervical Cancer Screening: From the Papanicolaou Smear to the Vaccine Era J. Clin. Oncol., May 15, 2003; 21(90100): 224s - 230. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. E. Sherman, A. T. Lorincz, D. R. Scott, S. Wacholder, P. E. Castle, A. G. Glass, I. Mielzynska-Lohnas, B. B. Rush, and M. Schiffman Baseline Cytology, Human Papillomavirus Testing, and Risk for Cervical Neoplasia: A 10-Year Cohort Analysis J Natl Cancer Inst, January 1, 2003; 95(1): 46 - 52. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Peitsaro, S. Hietanen, B. Johansson, T. Lakkala, and S. Syrjanen Single copy heterozygote integration of HPV 33 in chromosomal band 5p14 is found in an epithelial cell clone with selective growth advantage Carcinogenesis, June 1, 2002; 23(6): 1057 - 1064. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F X Bosch, A Lorincz, N Munoz, C J L M Meijer, and K V Shah The causal relation between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer J. Clin. Pathol., April 1, 2002; 55(4): 244 - 265. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Peitsaro, B. Johansson, and S. Syrjanen Integrated Human Papillomavirus Type 16 Is Frequently Found in Cervical Cancer Precursors as Demonstrated by a Novel Quantitative Real-Time PCR Technique J. Clin. Microbiol., March 1, 2002; 40(3): 886 - 891. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L.-J. van Doorn, W. Quint, B. Kleter, A. Molijn, B. Colau, M.-T. Martin, Kravang-In, N. Torrez-Martinez, C. L. Peyton, and C. M. Wheeler Genotyping of Human Papillomavirus in Liquid Cytology Cervical Specimens by the PGMY Line Blot Assay and the SPF10 Line Probe Assay J. Clin. Microbiol., March 1, 2002; 40(3): 979 - 983. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Cancer Research | Clinical Cancer Research |
| Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention | Molecular Cancer Therapeutics |
| Molecular Cancer Research | Cancer Prevention Research |
| Cancer Prevention Journals Portal | Cancer Reviews Online |
| Annual Meeting Education Book | Meeting Abstracts Online |
