Abstract
Background:Knowledge of the prevalence of type-specific human papillomavirus (HPV) infections is necessary to predict the expected, and to monitor the actual, impact of HPV immunisation and to design effective screening strategies for vaccinated populations.Methods:Residual specimens of cervical cytology (N4719), CIN3CGIN and cervical cancer biopsies (N1515) were obtained from sites throughout England, anonymised and tested for HPV DNA using the Linear Array typing system (Roche).Results:The prevalence of HPV 16 andor 18 (with or without another high-risk (HR) type) was 76 in squamous cell carcinomas, 82 in adenoadenosquamous carcinomas and 63 and 91 in CIN3 and CGIN, respectively. Of all HR HPV-infected women undergoing cytology, non-vaccine HPV types only were found in over 60 of those with mild dyskaryosis or below, and in <20 of those with cancer. In women of all ages undergoing screening, HR HPV prevalence was 16 and HPV 16 andor 18 prevalence was 5.Conclusion:Pre- immunisation, high-grade cervical disease in England was predominantly associated with HPV 16 andor 18, which promises a high impact from HPV immunisation in due course. Second-generation vaccines and screening strategies need to consider the best ways to detect and prevent disease due to the remaining HR HPV types.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 209-216 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | British Journal of Cancer |
| Volume | 103 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 13 Jul 2010 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:We gratefully acknowledge the ‘NHSCSP HPV Special Interest Group’ for their advice throughout the study. We also thank Mark Jit for helpful comments on the analyses and paper, and the reviewers of the paper. This study was funded by a grant from the NHS Cervical Screening Programme. RH-J and NdS were funded by the Research and Development Directorate of the United Kingdom Department of Health, grant reference number 039/030. The study was given a favourable ethical opinion by the South East MREC (reference 06/MRE01/48).
