Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Pre-Vaccination Human Papillomavirus Genotypes and HPV16 Variants among Women Aged 25 Years or Less with Cervical Cancer
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Pre-Vaccination Human Papillomavirus Genotypes and HPV16 Variants among Women Aged 25 Years or Less with Cervical Cancer
Do you wish to request the book?
Pre-Vaccination Human Papillomavirus Genotypes and HPV16 Variants among Women Aged 25 Years or Less with Cervical Cancer
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Pre-Vaccination Human Papillomavirus Genotypes and HPV16 Variants among Women Aged 25 Years or Less with Cervical Cancer
2023
Overview
Background: In 2007, Australia introduced a national human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program. In 2017, the onset of cervical screening changed from 18 to 25 years of age, utilising human papillomavirus (HPV) nucleic acid testing. The objective of the study is to describe the HPV genotypes and HPV16 variants in biopsies from women ≤ 25 years of age with cervical carcinoma (CC) (cases), compared with those aged >25 years (controls), in a pre-vaccination cohort. Methods: HPV genotyping of archival paraffin blocks (n = 96) was performed using the INNO-LiPA HPV Genotyping assay. HPV16-positive samples were analysed for variants by type-specific PCR spanning L1, E2 and E6 regions. Results: HPV16 was the commonest genotype in cases (54.5%, 12/22) and controls (66.7%, 46/69) (p = 0.30), followed by HPV18 (36.3%, 8/22 vs. 17.3% 12/69, respectively) (p = 0.08). Furthermore, 90% (20/22) of cases and 84.1% (58/69) of controls were positive for HPV16 or 18 (p = 0.42); 100% (22/22) of cases and 95.7% (66/69) of controls had at least one genotype targeted by the nonavalent vaccine (p = 0.3). The majority of HPV16 variants (87.3%, 48/55) were of European lineage. The proportion of unique nucleotide substitutions was significantly higher in cases (83.3%, 10/12) compared with controls (34.1%, 15/44), (p < 0.003, χ2, OR 9.7, 95%CI 1.7–97.7). Conclusions: Virological factors may account for the differences in CCs observed in younger compared with older women. All CCs in young women in this study had preventable 9vHPV types, which is important messaging for health provider adherence to new cervical screening guidelines.
