Cancer Research The Future of Cancer Research: Science and Patient Impact Tumor Immunology: New Perspectives
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
Cancer Research 66, 10112-10119, October 15, 2006. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-1812
© 2006 American Association for Cancer Research
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kovacic, M. B.
Right arrow Articles by Burk, R. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kovacic, M. B.
Right arrow Articles by Burk, R. D.

Experimental Therapeutics, Molecular Targets, and Chemical Biology

Relationships of Human Papillomavirus Type, Qualitative Viral Load, and Age with Cytologic Abnormality

Melinda Butsch Kovacic1,2, Philip E. Castle1, Rolando Herrero3, Mark Schiffman1, Mark E. Sherman1, Sholom Wacholder1, Ana C. Rodriguez1,3, Martha L. Hutchinson5, M. Concepción Bratti3, Allan Hildesheim1, Jorge Morales3, Mario Alfaro4 and Robert D. Burk6

1 Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics and 2 Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland; 3 Proyecto Epidemiológico Guanacaste; 4 Laboratorio Nacional de Citología, Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, San Jose, Costa Rica; 5 Women and Infants' Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island; and 6 Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York

Requests for reprints: Melinda Butsch Kovacic, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 6120 Executive Boulevard, Suite 550, EPS MSC 7234, Bethesda, MD 20892-7234. Phone: 301-496-1692; Fax: 301-402-0916; E-mail: kovacicm{at}mail.nih.gov.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Persistent cervical infections with carcinogenic human papillomaviruses (HPV) cause virtually all cervical cancer. Cytologic abnormalities are the manifestations of HPV infections used to identify women at risk. To compare the potential of the full range of anogenital HPV genotypes to induce cytopathic effects, we examined the influences of HPV type, viral load, and age on cytopathology among 1,222 women having a single HPV type at enrollment into a 10,000-woman population-based study in Costa Rica. Cervical specimens were tested for ~40 HPV types by MY09/MY11 L1 primer PCR and type-specific dot blot hybridization. Types were organized by phylogenetic species and cancer risk. PCR signal strength served as a qualitative surrogate for viral load. Overall, 24.8% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 22.4-27.3] of single prevalent HPV infections had concurrent abnormalities (atypical squamous cells or worse) ranging from 0.0% to 80.0% based on HPV type. Noncarcinogenic {alpha}3/{alpha}15 types, although highly prevalent, uncommonly caused cytologic abnormalities (13.1%; 95% CI, 9.8-17.0). In contrast, one quarter to nearly one half of infections with a single major carcinogenic species type ({alpha}9/{alpha}11/{alpha}7/{alpha}5/{alpha}6) produced abnormalities. Greater abnormalities were observed with increasing qualitative viral load of carcinogenic types; fewer abnormalities were observed among older women (>54 years). A high percentage (46.2%) of detected abnormalities in women infected with HPV16 or related {alpha}9 types were high grade or worse, consistent with strong carcinogenicity, compared with 10.7% in women infected with {alpha}7 types, including HPV18, a major cause of adenocarcinoma. The lack of evident severe abnormalities associated with HPV18 and related HPV types might have implications for screening for poorly detected glandular and {alpha}7-related lesions. (Cancer Res 2006; 66(20): 10112-9)


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
More than 40 human papillomavirus (HPV) types infect the cervix. Most infections, including those by approximately 13 to 15 carcinogenic types, are transient. Persistent cervical infections by carcinogenic HPV types cause virtually all cervical cancer worldwide (1–3). HPV infection can lead to equivocal cytomorphologic changes referred to as atypical squamous cells (ASC), definite cytologic signs of HPV infection termed low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL), or cytologic signs of a potential cancer precursor designated as high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL; ref. 4). HSIL is the best cytologic correlate of histologic diagnoses of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2, grade 3, or carcinoma in situ. Although these cytopathic manifestations of cervical HPV infections are used in Papanicolaou testing to identify women at risk for cervical cancer, the potential of individual HPV types to induce cytologic abnormalities has not been fully studied.

Numerous studies have attempted to determine whether HPV infection and high concentration of HPV DNA (HPV viral load) in cytologic specimens are predictors of detectable cytologic abnormalities and/or underlying histologic CIN (5–13). Many studies have relied on convenience populations rather than true population samples to evaluate these relationships. In addition, most studies have been restricted to HPV16 or carcinogenic types as a group. The results remain controversial and even incomplete for the less frequent, individual carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic types. Consideration of age adds another layer of complexity because the relationship between HPV infection with specific types and the likelihood of detecting cytologic abnormalities at different ages has not been fully characterized. Some previous cross-sectional analyses have suggested that HPV DNA prevalence and cytologic abnormality drop steadily and in parallel with age (14, 15). In comparison, other prevalence studies have revealed U-shaped age-specific HPV DNA prevalence curves for virtually every type, with higher prevalences in the younger and older women than in the middle-aged women (16–21). We therefore comprehensively examined the interrelationships of the full range of carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic HPV types, qualitative viral load, and age with cytologic abnormalities within a population-based cohort of ~10,000 randomly chosen women in Guanacaste, Costa Rica.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Study population. This population-based cohort study included participants from Guanacaste, Costa Rica enrolled between June 1993 and December 1994 with the approval of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and Costa Rican institutional review boards (17, 22). Of the 11,742 potentially eligible subjects, 10,049 women provided written informed consent. Detailed methods of cohort recruitment, screening, and follow-up have been previously published (23).

After excluding women who were hysterectomized (n = 630), were virgins (n = 583), or refused a pelvic exam (n = 291), a baseline analytic group of 8,545 women was defined. After further excluding women who at enrollment were missing liquid-based cytology results (n = 469), had multiple infections (n = 658), had missing PCR results (n = 24), or were found to be positive only for a combination of rare HPV types (dot blot mix; n = 8) or uncharacterized types (n = 239), final analyses groups of 1,222 women with single HPV infections and 5,925 PCR-negative women were examined. Of the 469 women with missing cytology results, 15.8% (n = 74) had single HPV infections similar to those women with cytology results (15.1%; P = 0.7). Women positive for the rare HPV types in aggregate or for uncharacterized types were removed as we could not be certain that these women had single HPV infections. Multiple HPV infections were removed from the analysis because it was unclear to which type the cytologic abnormalities should be attributed. Of the 658 women with multiple infections, there were 75 (11.4%) women with ASC, 133 (20.2%) women with LSIL, and 58 (8.8%) women with HSIL or worse (37 women with HSIL-CIN2, 17 with HSIL-CIN3, 3 with cytologic interpretations of microinvasive cancer, and 1 with a cytologic interpretation of invasive cancer). Although the percentage of overall cytologic abnormalities were higher in women with multiple infections (40.4%) than observed in women with only single infections (Table 1 ), the percentage of HSIL and worse cytologic interpretations (21.8%) among women with any cytologic abnormality (ASC or worse) was similar (P = 0.6).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Percentage of women with single HPV infections having any cytologic abnormalities

 
Specimen collection. Two exfoliative cervical specimens were obtained during a single pelvic examination at baseline (23). The first specimen was collected using a Cervex brush directed at the cervical os. Following preparation of conventional Papanicolaou smears, thin-layer cytology slides (ThinPrep, Cytyc Corp., Marlborough, MA) from the remaining cells stored in PreservCyt (Cytyc) were made. A second cervical specimen was similarly collected immediately following the first using a Dacron swab and stored in specimen transport medium (STM; Digene Corp., Gaithersburg, MD).

HPV DNA testing. PCR testing was done using DNA extracted from the STM specimen. To amplify HPV DNA, we used a MY09/M11 L1 consensus primer PCR (MY09/11 PCR) method with TaqGold polymerase as described previously (24). In addition, dot blot hybridization of PCR products for HPV type-specific detection was conducted using type-specific oligonucleotide probes for HPV types 2, 6, 11, 13, 16, 18, 26, 31 to 35, 39, 40, 42 to 45, 51 to 59, 61, 62, 64, 66 to 74, 81 to 85, 82 (AE2 and W13B), and 89 (25). Probes for HPV types 2, 13, 34, 42 to 4, 57, 64, 69, 74, 82 (AE2 and W13B), and 54 (AE9) were also combined in dot blot hybridizations for detection of rare types (dot blot mix). Specimens that were HPV positive based on a radiolabeled generic probe mix but were not positive for any type-specific probe were considered to be positive for uncharacterized HPV types.

For these analyses, HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, and 68 (1) plus HPV66 (26) were considered as the primary carcinogenic types. HPV phylogenetic species (in the {alpha} genus) that infect the mucosal epithelia were grouped according to our previously published Bayesian phylogenetic tree (27). In addition to individual {alpha} species, we also examined five {alpha} "species groups." Two groups contain mostly carcinogenic types: (a) {alpha}9/{alpha}11, HPV types 16, 31, 33, 34, 35, 52, 58, 64, 67, and 73, and (b) {alpha}7, HPV types 18, 39, 45, 59, 68, 70, and 85. One group is a mix of carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic types: (c) {alpha}5/{alpha}6, HPV types 26, 51, 53, 56, 66, 69, and 82. Two other groups contain exclusively noncarcinogenic HPV types: (d) {alpha}3/{alpha}15, HPV types 61, 62, 71, 72, 81, 83, 84, and 89 and (e) {alpha}1/{alpha}8/{alpha}10/{alpha}13, HPV types 6, 11, 32, 40, 42, 54, 55, and 74.

To determine HPV PCR positivity, three experienced investigators interpreted type-specific dot blot results and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Signal strength of the PCR products was then evaluated by two observers using a qualitative index originally on a scale of 1 to 5 (weakest = 1 and strongest = 5). The index depicts the strength of the hybridization signal as determined by examining the density and diameter of the PCR product on the autoradiogram (28). PCR signal strength has previously been correlated with the Hybrid Capture assay, a semiquantitative HPV viral load measurement (29), and more recently with the Hybrid Capture 2 assay.7 Further, examination of the relationship between PCR signal strength and quantitative Taqman PCR, the referent standard of quantitative HPV viral load measurement (30, 31), in women infected with a single type (HPV16 or HPV18) from this population revealed reasonable agreement.8 We therefore used these measurements as a qualitative measurement of HPV viral load.

Outcome measures. Masked to HPV test results, liquid-based cytology slides were classified with the Bethesda System into normal, ASC, LSIL, HSIL, and cancer by a single reader (M.L.H.). The cytopathologist also made a distinction between HSIL that seemed less severe (CIN2) or more severe (CIN3). Cytologic abnormality was defined as enrollment interpretations of equivocal (ASC) or worse for these analyses. For women with abnormal cytologic interpretations, the percentage of women with equivocal (ASC), mildly abnormal (LSIL), or severe (HSIL) or worse findings were reported. Of the 72 women with both a single HPV infection and a HSIL or worse cytology, 36 women had HSIL-CIN2 cytologic interpretations, 31 women with cytologic interpretations of HSIL-CIN3 interpretations, 4 women with cytologic interpretations of microinvasive cancer, and a single woman had an invasive cancer interpretation.

Statistical analysis. We summarized the frequency and percentage of the type-specific occurrences and used the binomial distribution to calculate the exact 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We then compared the difference in occurrence of cytologic abnormalities between specific types or species groups using the Pearson {chi}2 test. Analyses stratifying these groups by age group (<35, 35-54, and >54 years) were also done. Two-tailed Ps < 0.05 were considered significant.

We also examined the association of type-specific qualitative viral load with any cytologic abnormality (ASC or worse), LSIL or worse, or HSIL or worse cytologic abnormalities and for the HPV groups mentioned above. As our patterns for any cytologic abnormality and LSIL or worse did not substantially differ, only results for any cytologic abnormality are shown. For the purposes of type-specific and species analyses, viral load findings were collapsed in a biologically relevant manner [PCR signal strength index of 1 (low) versus 2 to 3 (moderate) versus 4 to 5 (high)]. Alternative groupings did not meaningfully change the conclusions. Assuming a linear relationship for our three-level PCR signal strength variable, we evaluated each HPV type and HPV group using a two-sided test for trend (Ptrend). For the purposes of our age-species group stratified analyses, PCR signal strength indices of 1 to 3 (lower viral load) were grouped and compared with grouped indices of 4 to 5 (higher viral load). The presence of multiplicative interactions between age group, HPV risk group, and viral load was assessed by use of a Wald {chi}2 test with inclusion of the corresponding interaction term of each pair in logistic regression models under the null hypothesis of no difference in risk estimates between groups. We observed no significant interactions.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
The order of the presentation of HPV types in Table 1 follows phylogenetic relatedness (27). Among 1,222 women having a single HPV type infection at enrollment, the overall percentage of women with cytologic abnormality (ASC or worse) were 24.8% (95% CI, 22.4-27.3; Table 1). Importantly, we found that 25.7% ({alpha}7) to 45.5% ({alpha}11) of women with mainly carcinogenic species ({alpha}9, {alpha}11, {alpha}7, {alpha}5, and {alpha}6) had concurrent cytologic abnormalities considerably more than women with noncarcinogenic HPV types in aggregate (16.4%; 95% CI, 13.6-19.5; Table 1). In fact, women with single {alpha}3/{alpha}15 noncarcinogenic HPV type infections were only slightly more likely to have cytologic abnormalities than HPV DNA-negative women, although the difference was statistically significant because of large numbers yielding very small confidence intervals (13.1% versus 8.0%, respectively; P = 0.0007).

Interestingly, 38.5% (95% CI, 30.8-46.6) of women with HPV16, the most common HPV type of the {alpha}9 species, had cytologic abnormalities. This percentage of cytologic abnormalities was near the middle of the range for individual {alpha}9 types [range, 18.0% (HPV52) to 80.0% (HPV67)] and for other individual carcinogenic types [range, 12.5% (HPV45) to 50.0% (HPV35)]. The percentage of cytologic abnormalities associated with HPV16 infection were also similar to percentage of women with any other of the carcinogenic types in aggregate (32.9%; 95% CI, 28.3-37.6; P = 0.2).

Thirty of 40 individual HPV types examined (75.0%), including HPV16, produced as much or more equivocal (ASC) as definite (LSIL) viral cytopathic effect (Table 1). Only four HPV types (10.0% of all HPV types; HPV16, HPV31, HPV26, and HPV85) had more concurrent HSIL or worse cytologies than ASC or LSIL cytologies combined. Of note, HPV26 (n = 5) and HPV85 (n = 26) were rarely detected and only one woman for each type had an abnormal cytology interpreted as HSIL or worse. HPV16-positive women had the greatest percentage of abnormalities interpreted as HSIL or worse (60.0%).

Therefore, the two major cancer-associated HPV species groups ({alpha}9/{alpha}11 and {alpha}7) differed considerably with regard to typical cytologic severity when abnormalities were detected (Table 1). Among women with {alpha}9/{alpha}11 type-associated abnormalities, 29.0% were interpreted as ASC, 26.6% were interpreted as LSIL, and 44.4% were interpreted as HSIL or worse. Women with {alpha}7 types (HPV18, HPV45, and related types), in contrast, had a strikingly low percentage of HSIL or worse (10.7%), which was significantly less than the {alpha}9/{alpha}11 species group (P = 0.03). When abnormal cytology was (uncommonly) observed for women with {alpha}3/{alpha}15 HPV types, most were interpreted as ASC (68.8%), 25.0% were interpreted as LSIL, and very few (6.3%; n = 3) were interpreted as HSIL or worse.

Phylogenetic relatedness did not completely explain the variability within species and species groups. For example, although HPV53, HPV56, and HPV66 are members of the {alpha}6 species, HPV53 showed significantly less overall cytologic abnormalities (20.3%; 95% CI, 11.8-31.2; P = 0.002) than the carcinogenic HPV56 and HPV66 types together (46.7%; 95% CI, 31.7-62.1) and there were notably different percentages of ASC, LSIL, and HSIL or worse interpretations.

Exploring the relationship between cytologic abnormality and viral load, we found that increasing qualitative viral load (as measured by PCR signal strength) of any single HPV type was significantly associated with cytologic abnormalities (Ptrend < 0.0001; Table 2 ), an effect that was largely driven by {alpha}9/{alpha}11 HPV types (in aggregate, Ptrend < 0.0001) and, more specifically, HPV16 (Ptrend < 0.0001). Although 8 of 42 (19.1%) women with moderate HPV16 qualitative viral load and 52 of 92 (56.5%) women with higher HPV16 qualitative viral loads had cytologic abnormalities, none of the 22 women with low HPV16 qualitative viral load were interpreted as abnormal (Table 2). The association between greater qualitative viral load and abnormal cytology was significant for {alpha}5/{alpha}6 types (Ptrend = 0.04) and marginally significant for {alpha}7 types (Ptrend = 0.05), the other {alpha} species that contain carcinogenic HPV types. However, no significant trends were observed for noncarcinogenic {alpha}1/{alpha}8/{alpha}10/{alpha}13 types (Ptrend = 0.5) and {alpha}3/{alpha}15 types (Ptrend = 0.4). Examination of all noncarcinogenic types in aggregate (including those in {alpha}9/{alpha}11/{alpha}7/{alpha}5/{alpha}6 species) revealed a weak, nonsignificant linear trend (Ptrend = 0.06).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Percentage of women with cytologic abnormalities by qualitative viral load

 
Because most cytologic abnormalities are the result of HPV infection and because we previously observed a U-shaped age-prevalence pattern for HPV DNA positivity (16), we examined whether there was a similar pattern for cytologic abnormalities among all women in the study and among HPV-positive women. Instead of a U-shaped curve, we observed a substantial reduction in abnormalities in the older age group compared with either of the younger age groups. For the overall study population, including HPV-negative women, the percentage of abnormalities for the three age groups were 11.8%, 12.6%, and 5.4%, respectively. We observed a similarly reduced percentage of cytologic abnormality among older women when we examined only HPV-positive women as shown in Table 3 (P < 0.0001).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Percentage of women with cytologic abnormalities stratified by age

 
Although only 22.7% of older women with HPV16 infection had cytologic abnormalities, four of these five women had HSIL or worse interpretations. Similarly, 50.0% of the women with cytologic abnormalities due to other {alpha}9/{alpha}11 types in the older age group had HSIL or worse interpretations, whereas none of the cytologically abnormal women infected with exclusively noncarcinogenic species groups ({alpha}1/{alpha}8/{alpha}10/{alpha}13 and {alpha}3/{alpha}15) had HSIL or worse interpretations (Table 3). Further, we observed that the lowest percentages of abnormalities predominantly occurred among the oldest age group regardless of viral load or species group (Fig. 1 ). However, the trends were not simple or monotonic. For some species groups, but not others, cytologic abnormalities increased in the middle age group before falling at older ages.


Figure 1
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Association of cytologic abnormality with age by {alpha} species and qualitative HPV viral load. Abnormal cytologies are defined as ASCs or worse cytologic interpretations. Lower viral load indicates PCR signal strength indices of 1 to 3. Higher viral load indicates PCR signal strength indices of 4 to 5.

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
In this analysis, we investigated associations of cytologic abnormality with type-specific HPV infection, qualitative viral load based on type-specific PCR signal strength, and age. We tested for the full range of anogenital HPV types in a large population sample of women with single HPV infections. Our analyses revealed that (a) the percentage of cytologic abnormality varied greatly depending on the infecting HPV type, with types within carcinogenic species producing similar higher levels of cytologic abnormalities; (b) for these same high-risk profile groupings, cytologic abnormality was significantly associated with high qualitative viral loads, with weaker associations among older women and no such associations for noncarcinogenic species; (c) percentages of cytologic abnormality for most types declined among older women (>54 years); (d) HPV16-positive women did not have more overall cytologic abnormalities in our study compared with women with other carcinogenic types, but HSIL or worse findings were more commonly found in these women compared with other types, particularly among older women; and (e) in contrast to HPV16-related types, HPV18 and the related {alpha}7 species types overall were associated with strikingly lower percentages of HSIL or worse cytologic interpretations.

HPV type, viral load, and abnormality. Previous reports have indicated that the risk of HPV persistence and disease progression differ greatly by HPV type with genetically related types appearing to behave most similarly (2, 27). These analyses show that the percentage of cytologic abnormality varies by HPV type, and further, we have shown that three species groups ({alpha}5/{alpha}6, {alpha}7, and {alpha}9/{alpha}11) have nearly equivalent proportions of cytologic abnormality (~30%; Table 1). These species groups consist primarily of carcinogenic and possibly carcinogenic HPV types. The remaining species groups that include only noncarcinogenic types are only half as likely to produce cytologic abnormalities. In our study, genetic relatedness did not completely explain differences in cytologic abnormalities observed within species; there are likely to be still unknown biological properties that distinguish individual viral types. These properties might directly influence the ability of the viruses to replicate or reflect differences in properties of viral gene expression.

Previous reports have suggested that high HPV DNA copy number is associated with cytologic abnormalities (32) and that HPV-positive women with normal cytology are often observed to have very low viral loads with minimal risk of subsequent progression to cancer (9, 17). Using PCR signal strength as a qualitative measure of viral load, we observed that the single strongest significant positive linear relationship between viral load and cytologic abnormality was found in HPV16-positive women (Ptrend < 0.0001). Cytologic abnormality was correlated to a lesser extent with high HPV viral load in women with other {alpha}9/{alpha}11 (primarily carcinogenic) HPV types (Table 2). As specimens for cytology and HPV testing were similarly collected, it is likely that viral load and cytologic abnormality are measuring the same phenomenon and, further, that biological or genetic properties of specific virus types modulate these two highly correlated outcomes.

The influence of age on abnormality. Our earlier analyses of the Guanacaste cohort reported an early decline in HPV prevalence with age followed by a second albeit lower peak in prevalence after menopause (16). If HPV positivity is driving abnormality in the same way in women of all ages, we would expect nearly equivalent percentages of cytologic abnormalities in HPV-positive women across all three age groups. In contrast, our present data show that the proportions of singly infected women exhibiting cytologic abnormalities were analogous to women in the <35 and 35- to 54- year-old age groups but significantly lower in the >54-year-old age group (Table 3). Viral load was not consistently related to age for all women or stratified by level of cytologic abnormality.

Numerous mechanisms may simultaneously contribute to the complex observation of decreased likelihood of cytologic abnormalities in older women. For example, changing hormone levels in aging women results in atrophy (thinning of the cervix) and replacement of the squamocolumnar epithelium by vaginal squamous epithelium. These events may result in the collection of cells less predisposed to HPV-induced cytopathologic changes, consistent with reports that fewer cytologic abnormalities are observed in hysterectomized compared with nonhysterectomized women (33).9

In addition, tropism for the vaginal epithelium rather than the cervical epithelium by the more prevalent noncarcinogenic HPV types might decrease detection of cytologic abnormalities. Indeed, we previously found that noncarcinogenic {alpha}3/{alpha}15 types have a predilection for vaginal epithelium (34). Our present data indicated that 39.9% of the age group of >54 years had {alpha}3/{alpha}15 types and that only 6.3% of these women had cytologic abnormalities.

Interestingly, we observed a striking absence of LSIL in the >54 year-old age group (Table 3). We cannot fully explain this observation. Due to atrophy of the epithelium, HPV infections in older women may only produce very subtle cytologic changes with fewer and smaller koilocytes. Microscopic detection of these often-transient koilocytotic changes (categorized as LSIL) might consequently be more difficult. More studies, however, are needed to completely understand the influence of age on the natural history and biological effects of HPV infection.

Study strengths and limitations. Use of PCR signal strength in this study allowed a first examination of viral load for the full range of anogenital HPV types in a true population-based cohort. Other studies primarily have focused on disease associations with HPV16 infection (9, 35–39) and a handful other individual HPV types (generally no more than 10 types in a single study; refs. 31, 40–43). Nevertheless, PCR signal strength is a relative estimator of viral load and not a quantitative measure. As such, we were not able to control for cellularity in our analyses. However, any measure of viral load using exfoliated cells is in reality qualitative because it is impossible to differentiate 1,000 viral copies in one cell from 1,000 cells containing a single viral genome each. In addition, similar to other viral load measures, we were not able to account for lesion size. Previous reports have suggested that lesion size, in addition to lesion severity, may influence viral load measurements (11, 44). Also important, we were unable to examine viral load within women with multiple infections (~35% of HPV infections in this study population), limiting the generalizability of our data to women with single HPV infections. Last, it is possible that we have underestimated associations between HPV type, viral load, and cytology given the sequential collection of specimens. Further studies and/or pooled analyses are therefore needed to corroborate and extend our findings.

Clinical implications. The major clinical implications of our findings relate to HPV16 and HPV18, the major carcinogenic types worldwide. HPV16 is the type most likely to cause cytologic abnormalities, which, when present, tend to be HSIL or worse (especially among older women if the estimates based on small numbers prove correct). In contrast, HPV18 is unlikely to cause HSIL or worse cytologies despite its importance in causing 37% to 41% of cases of cervical adenocarcinoma (which in turn represents ≥15% of all cervical cancers; ref. 45). The qualitative difference in cytopathic effect, as seen in an unbiased population study of adult women from age 18 to 97, is remarkable and supports earlier data from case series (46) and prospective data (27, 47). No one has been able to explain exactly why HPV18 tends to be "occult" at the stage of high-grade intraepithelial lesions (precancer), the target of cervical cancer screening. Differences in viral activity could be involved or it could be a correlate of the typical cell target (i.e., the relative lack of exfoliation during screening of endocervical glandular cells simulating lower viral load and fewer abnormal cells). Regardless, in screening we can expect HPV16 infections to reveal themselves more aggressively compared with HPV18 infections. In a parallel, prospective study in the same Guanacaste cohort, HPV18 accounted for four and HPV45 accounted for another one of the nine invasive cancers that occurred despite vigorous screening (27). Our data suggest that we should pay careful attention to HPV18 as well as to HPV16 but for a different reason. Specifically, the possible use of HPV18 typing to improve the detection of cytologically occult lesions should be formally evaluated.


   Acknowledgments
 
Grant support: Intramural Research Program of the NIH, NCI; NCI grant CA78527 (R.D. Burk); and NCI contracts NO1-CP-21081, NO1-CP-33061, NO1-CP-40542, NO1-CP-50535, and NO1-CP-81023 with Costa Rican Foundation for Training in Health Sciences, Costa Rica.

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.

We thank the study staff in Guanacaste for the enthusiastic work and the local health authorities for the support that made this effort possible and the Burk lab personnel for technical support.


   Footnotes
 
7 J. Palefsky et al. Quantitation of cervicovaginal HPV DNA level and its associations with HPV persistence and incident cervical lesions in HIV-seropositive women, in preparation. Back

8 P. Gravitt et al. Viral load of HPV16 is not uniquely associated with prevalent histologic cervical disease but distinctively associated with progression to high-grade neoplasia, in preparation. Back

9 P.E. Castle et al. Human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence in hysterectomized and nonhysterectomized women. J Infect Dis. In press 2006. Back

Received 5/18/06. Revised 7/17/06. Accepted 8/ 9/06.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Bosch FX, Manos MM, Munoz N, et al. Prevalence of HPV DNA in cervical cancer: a worldwide perspective. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:796–802.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Munoz N, Bosch FX, De Sanjose S, et al. Epidemiologic classification of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:518–27.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999;189:12–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Cox JT, Lorincz AT, Schiffman MH, et al. Human papillomavirus testing by hybrid capture appears to be useful in triaging women with a cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;172:946–54.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Cuzick J, Terry G, Ho L, Hollingworth T, Anderson M. Type-specific human papillomavirus DNA in abnormal smears as a predictor of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Res Virol 1994;145:83–92.[Medline]
  7. Dalstein V, Riethmuller D, Pretet JL, et al. Persistence and load of high-risk HPV are predictors for development of high-grade cervical lesions: a longitudinal French cohort study. Int J Cancer 2003;106:396–403.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Hall S, Lorincz A, Shah F, et al. Human papillomavirus DNA detection in cervical specimens by hybrid capture: correlation with cytologic and histologic diagnoses of squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 1996;62:353–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Lorincz AT, Castle PE, Sherman ME, et al. Viral load of human papillomavirus and risk of CIN3 or cervical cancer. Lancet 2002;360:228–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Schneider A, Zahm DM, Greinke C, Kirchmayr R, Nindl I. Different detectability of high-risk HPV in smears from incident and prevalent high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix. Gynecol Oncol 1997;65:399–404.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Sun CA, Liu JF, Wu DM, et al. Viral load of high-risk human papillomavirus in cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2002;76:41–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Sun XW, Ferenczy A, Johnson D, et al. Evaluation of the Hybrid Capture human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid detection test. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;173:1432–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Castle PE, Schiffman M, Wheeler CM. Hybrid capture 2 viral load and the 2-year cumulative risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:1590–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Jacobs MV, Walboomers J, Snijders P, et al. Distribution of 37 HPV types in women with cytologically normal cervical smears: the age-related patterns for high-risk and low-risk types. Int J Cancer 2000;87:221–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Sherman ME, Schiffman M, Cox JT. Effects of age and HPV viral load on colposcopy triage: data from the randomized atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance/low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion triage study (ALTS). J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:102–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Castle PE, Schiffman M, Herrero R, et al. A prospective study of age trends in cervical human papillomavirus acquisition and persistence in Guanacaste, Costa Rica. J Infect Dis 2005;191:1808–16.[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Herrero R, Hildesheim A, Bratti C, et al. Population-based study of human papillomavirus infection and cervical neoplasia in rural Costa Rica. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:464–74.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Herrero R, Castle PE, Schiffman M, et al. Epidemiologic profile of type-specific human papillomavirus infection and cervical neoplasia in Guanacaste, Costa Rica. J Infect Dis 2005;191:1796–807.[CrossRef][Medline]
  19. Lazcano-Ponce E, Herrero R, Munoz N, et al. Epidemiology of HPV infection among Mexican women with normal cervical cytology. Int J Cancer 2001;91:412–20.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Pham TH, Nguyen TH, Herrero R, et al. Human papillomavirus infection among women in South and North Vietnam. Int J Cancer 2003;104:213–20.[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Shin HR, Lee DH, Herrero R, et al. Prevalence of human papillomavirus infection in women in Busan, South Korea. Int J Cancer 2003;103:413–21.[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Herrero R, Schiffman MH, Bratti C, et al. Design and methods of a population-based natural history study of cervical neoplasia in a rural province of Costa Rica: the Guanacaste Project. Rev Panam Salud Publica 1997;1:362–75.[Medline]
  23. Bratti MC, Rodriguez AC, Schiffman M, et al. Description of a seven-year prospective study of human papillomavirus infection and cervical neoplasia among 10000 women in Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Rev Panam Salud Publica 2004;15:75–89.[Medline]
  24. Castle PE, Schiffman M, Gravitt PE, et al. Comparisons of HPV DNA detection by MY09/11 PCR methods. J Med Virol 2002;68:417–23.[CrossRef][Medline]
  25. Qu W, Jiang G, Cruz Y, et al. PCR detection of human papillomavirus: comparison between MY09/MY11 and GP5+/GP6+ primer systems. J Clin Microbiol 1997;35:1304–10.[Abstract]
  26. Cogliano V, Baan R, Straif K, Grosse Y, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F. Carcinogenicity of human papillomaviruses. Lancet Oncol 2005;6:204.[CrossRef][Medline]
  27. Schiffman M, Herrero R, Desalle R, et al. The carcinogenicity of human papillomavirus types reflects viral evolution. Virology 2005;337:76–84.[CrossRef][Medline]
  28. Burk RD, Ho GY, Beardsley L, Lempa M, Peters M, Bierman R. Sexual behavior and partner characteristics are the predominant risk factors for genital human papillomavirus infection in young women. J Infect Dis 1996;174:679–89.[Medline]
  29. Shah KV, Solomon L, Daniel R, Cohn S, Vlahov D. Comparison of PCR and hybrid capture methods for detection of human papillomavirus in injection drug-using women at high risk of human immunodeficiency virus infection. J Clin Microbiol 1997;35:517–9.[Abstract]
  30. Peyton CL, Schiffman M, Lorincz AT, et al. Comparison of PCR- and hybrid capture-based human papillomavirus detection systems using multiple cervical specimen collection strategies. J Clin Microbiol 1998;36:3248–54.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Gravitt PE, Burk RD, Lorincz A, et al. A comparison between real-time polymerase chain reaction and hybrid capture 2 for human papillomavirus DNA quantitation. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12:477–84.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Schiffman M, Herrero R, Hildesheim A, et al. HPV DNA testing in cervical cancer screening: results from women in a high-risk province of Costa Rica. JAMA 2000;283:87–93.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Castle PE, Schiffman M, Bratti MC, et al. A population-based study of vaginal human papillomavirus infection in hysterectomized women. J Infect Dis 2004;190:458–67.[CrossRef][Medline]
  34. Castle PE, Jeronimo J, Schiffman M, et al. Age-related changes of the cervix influence human papillomavirus type distribution. Cancer Res 2006;66:1218–24.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Castle PE, Schiffman M, Scott DR, et al. Semiquantitative human papillomavirus type 16 viral load and the prospective risk of cervical precancer and cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:1311–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Monnier-Benoit S, Dalstein V, Riethmuller D, Lalaoui N, Mougin C, Pretet JL. Dynamics of HPV16 DNA load reflect the natural history of cervical HPV-associated lesions. J Clin Virol 2006;35:270–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  37. Schlecht NF, Trevisan A, Duarte-Franco E, et al. Viral load as a predictor of the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Cancer 2003;103:519–24.[CrossRef][Medline]
  38. van Duin M, Snijders PJ, Schrijnemakers HF, et al. Human papillomavirus 16 load in normal and abnormal cervical scrapes: an indicator of CIN II/III and viral clearance. Int J Cancer 2002;98:590–5.[CrossRef][Medline]
  39. Ylitalo N, Sorensen P, Josefsson AM, et al. Consistent high viral load of human papillomavirus 16 and risk of cervical carcinoma in situ: a nested case-control study. Lancet 2000;355:2194–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  40. Abba MC, Mouron SA, Gomez MA, Dulout FN, Golijow CD. Association of human papillomavirus viral load with HPV16 and high-grade intraepithelial lesion. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2003;13:154–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  41. Moberg M, Gustavsson I, Gyllensten U. Type-specific associations of human papillomavirus load with risk of developing cervical carcinoma in situ. Int J Cancer 2004;112:854–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  42. Moberg M, Gustavsson I, Wilander E, Gyllensten U. High viral loads of human papillomavirus predict risk of invasive cervical carcinoma. Br J Cancer 2005;92:891–4.[CrossRef][Medline]
  43. Swan DC, Tucker RA, Tortolero-Luna G, et al. Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA copy number is dependent on grade of cervical disease and HPV type. J Clin Microbiol 1999;37:1030–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Sherman ME, Wang SS, Wheeler CM, et al. Determinants of human papillomavirus load among women with histological cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: dominant impact of surrounding low-grade lesions. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12:1038–44.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Clifford GM, Smith JS, Plummer M, Muñoz N, Franceschi S. Human papillomavirus types in invasive cervical cancer worldwide: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 2003;88:63–73.[CrossRef][Medline]
  46. Kurman RJ, Schiffman MH, Lancaster WD, et al. Analysis of individual human papillomavirus types in cervical neoplasia: a possible role for type 18 in rapid progression. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;159:293–6.[Medline]
  47. Woodman CB, Collins S, Rollason TP, et al. Human papillomavirus type 18 and rapidly progressing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Lancet 2003;361:40–3.[CrossRef][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
P. E. Castle
Invited Commentary: Is Monitoring of Human Papillomavirus Infection for Viral Persistence Ready for Use in Cervical Cancer Screening?
Am. J. Epidemiol., July 15, 2008; 168(2): 138 - 144.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Gen. Virol.Home page
L. Bogaert, M. Van Poucke, C. De Baere, J. Dewulf, L. Peelman, R. Ducatelle, F. Gasthuys, and A. Martens
Bovine papillomavirus load and mRNA expression, cell proliferation and p53 expression in four clinical types of equine sarcoid
J. Gen. Virol., August 1, 2007; 88(8): 2155 - 2161.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Clin. Microbiol.Home page
M. Safaeian, R. Herrero, A. Hildesheim, W. Quint, E. Freer, L.-J. Van Doorn, C. Porras, S. Silva, P. Gonzalez, M. C. Bratti, et al.
Comparison of the SPF10-LiPA System to the Hybrid Capture 2 Assay for Detection of Carcinogenic Human Papillomavirus Genotypes among 5,683 Young Women in Guanacaste, Costa Rica
J. Clin. Microbiol., May 1, 2007; 45(5): 1447 - 1454.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
A. R. Kreimer, H. A. Katki, M. Schiffman, C. M. Wheeler, P. E. Castle, and for the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study Group
Viral Determinants of Human Papillomavirus Persistence following Loop Electrical Excision Procedure Treatment for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 2 or 3
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., January 1, 2007; 16(1): 11 - 16.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kovacic, M. B.
Right arrow Articles by Burk, R. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kovacic, M. B.
Right arrow Articles by Burk, R. D.

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