Incorporating HPV 33 and cytology into HPV 16/18 screening may be feasible. A cross-sectional study

Abstract

Purpose: The distribution of human papillomavirus (HPV) varies geographically, and each country is making its screening and vaccination program. This study questioned the need for colposcopy for HPV types other than HPV 16 and 18, and the need for cytology incorporated into HPV testing.

Methods: 1043 consecutive patients referred for colposcopy are included in this retrospective study. Logistic regression analysis, ANOVA, and Pearson's correlation were used for statistical analysis. The value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: HPV 16 was the most common HPV type referred, followed by HPV 18, 52, 51, and 31, respectively. HPV 16 tends to be positive in younger patients than other HPV types (p < 0.05). Only HPV 16 (OR: 1.41, 1.06-1.88 95% CI) and HPV 33 (OR: 2.23; 1.06-4.64 95% CI) (p < 0.05) had significant prediction for CIN 2 + lesions. In patients with only a cytological abnormality, cytological abnormality with single other high-risk (hr) HPV (without HPV 16 or 18) or double other hrHPV positivity but without HPV 16 and 18 infections, we detected 159 (19%) CIN 2 + lesions.

Conclusion: HPV 33 may be implemented in hrHPV screening protocols for direct colposcopy referral as well as HPV 16 and HPV 18 in specific regions. If we had opted for HPV-based screening only for HPV 16 and 18 without cytology, 19% of all CIN 2 + lesions would have been missed. HPV-based screening only with HPV 16 and 18 may not be feasible. Nonavalent vaccines should be considered for the vaccination of specific populations.

Keywords: Cervical cancer screening; Cytology; HPV; HPV DNA.