METHODOLOGY: A retrospective study was conducted to evaluate 77 cervical cases collected from the histopathology laboratory of Ipoh hospital from 1st January, 2005, to 31st December, 2006.
RESULTS: Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) was found in 33 (42%) cases, CIN III accounting for 27%, and CIN I, CIN II and CIN II-III 5% each. The highest rate for CIN cases was 43% in the 41-50 year age group and the lowest rate was 6% in the group aged 61-70 years. Non-keratinizing and metastatic squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) accounted for 16% and 13%, respectively, the combination being second in majority (29%), followed by adenocarcinoma (17%). The histopathological results showed CIN I to be characterized by mild papillary projections of the epithelium with some degree of nuclear enlargement, pleomorphism, mild koilocytosis, bionucleated cells and a low nucleo-cytoplasmic ratio. CIN II demonstrated typical squamous epithelium with disorganization of the lower part of the epithelium accompanied by nuclear hyperchromatism, an increased nucleo-cytoplasmic ratio, and scanty mitotic figures. CIN III was characterized by pleomorphic nuclei, atypical cells with mitotic figures, nucleo-cytoplasmic ratio, anisokaryosis and hyperchromasia.
CONCLUSION: Lesions related to cervical cancer showed tumor progression correlating with histopathological changes in cell morphology.
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the relative sensitivity for HPV detection of self-collection compared with practitioner-collected cervical specimens in the context of the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP).
STUDY DESIGN: 303 women aged ≥18 years attending a single tertiary referral centre took their own sample using a flocked-swab, and then had a practitioner-collected sample taken at colposcopy. All samples were tested at a single laboratory on the six PCR-based HPV assays which can be utilised in the NCSP; Roche cobas 4800 and cobas, Abbott RealTime, BD Onclarity, Cepheid Xpert, and Seegene Anyplex.
RESULTS: HPV16/18 results had high observed agreement between self- and practitioner-collected samples on all assays (range: 0.94-0.99), with good agreement for non-HPV16/18 oncogenic HPV types (range: 0.64-0.73).
CONCLUSIONS: Self-collection for HPV-based cervical screening shows good concordance and relative sensitivity when compared to practitionercollected samples across assays in the NCSP.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 258 community dwelling women from urban and rural settings who participated in health campaigns. In order to reduce the sampling bias, half of the study population performed the self-sampling prior to the physician sampling while the other half performed the self-sampling after the physician sampling, randomly. Acquired samples were assessed for cytological changes as well as HPV DNA detection.
RESULTS: The mean age of the subjects was 40.4±11.3 years. The prevalence of abnormal cervical changes was 2.7%. High risk and low risk HPV genotypes were found in 4.0% and 2.7% of the subjects, respectively. A substantial agreement was observed between self-sampling and the physician obtained sampling in cytological diagnosis (k=0.62, 95%CI=0.50, 0.74), micro-organism detection (k=0.77, 95%CI=0.66, 0.88) and detection of hormonal status (k=0.75, 95%CI=0.65, 0.85) as well as detection of high risk (k=0.77, 95%CI=0.4, 0.98) and low risk (K=0.77, 95%CI=0.50, 0.92) HPV. Menopausal state was found to be related with 8.39 times more adequate cell specimens for cytology but 0.13 times less adequate cell specimens for virological assessment.
CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that self-sampling has a good agreement with physician sampling in detecting HPV genotypes. Self-sampling can serve as a tool in HPV screening while it may be useful in detecting cytological abnormalities in Malaysia.
METHODS: Women older than 21 years with a histologic diagnosis of ICC and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia [CIN 2 or 3 and adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS)] were enrolled. Cervical specimens were reviewed by histopathologists to confirm the presence of ICC or CIN 2/3/AIS lesion and tested with short PCR fragment 10-DNA enzyme immunoassay-line probe assay for 14 oncogenic HPV types and 11 non-oncogenic HPV types. The prevalence of HPV 16, HPV 18, and other high-risk HPV types in ICC [including squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and adenocarcinoma/adenosquamous carcinoma (ADC/ASC)] and CIN 2/3/AIS was estimated.
RESULTS: In the 5 Asian countries, diagnosis of ICC was confirmed in 500 women [SCC (n = 392) and ADC/ASC (n = 108)], and CIN 2/3/AIS, in 411 women. Human papillomavirus DNA was detected in 93.8% to 97.0% (84.5% for the Philippines) of confirmed ICC cases [94.0%-98.7% of SCC; 87.0%-94.3% (50.0% for the Philippines) of ADC/ASC] and in 93.7% to 100.0% of CIN 2/3/AIS. The most common types observed among ICC cases were HPV 16 (36.8%-61.3%), HPV 18 (12.9%-35.4%), HPV 52 (5.4%-10.3%), and HPV 45 (1.5%-17.2%), whereas among CIN 2/3/AIS cases, HPV 16 (29.7%-46.6%) was the most commonly observed type followed by HPV 52 (17.0%-66.7%) and HPV 58 (8.6%-16.0%).
CONCLUSIONS: This article presents the data on the HPV prevalence, HPV type distribution, and their role in cervical carcinogenesis in 5 Asian countries. These data are of relevance to public health authorities for evaluating the existing and future cervical cancer prevention strategies including HPV-DNA testing-based screening and HPV vaccination in these Asian populations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women underwent self-sampling followed by gynecologist sampling during screening at two primary health clinics. Pap cytology of cervical specimens was evaluated for specimen adequacy, presence of endocervical cells or transformation zone cells and cytological interpretation for cells abnormalities. Cervical specimens were also extracted and tested for HPV DNA detection. Positive HPV smears underwent gene sequencing and HPV genotyping by referring to the online NCBI gene bank. Results were compared between samplings by Kappa agreement and McNemar test.
RESULTS: For Pap specimen adequacy, KSSD showed 100% agreement with gynecologist sampling but had only 32.3% agreement for presence of endocervical cells. Both sampling showed 100% agreement with only 1 case detected HSIL favouring CIN2 for cytology result. HPV DNA detection showed 86.2%agreement (K=0.64, 95% CI 0.524-0.756, p=0.001) between samplings. KSSD and gynaecologist sampling identified high risk HPV in 17.3% and 23.9% respectively (p= 0.014).
CONCLUSION: The self-sampling using Kato device can serve as a tool in Pap cytology and HPV DNA detection in low resource settings in Malaysia. Self-sampling devices such as KSSD can be used as an alternative technique to gynaecologist sampling for cervical cancer screening among rural populations in Malaysia.
METHODS: Liquid based cervico-vaginal cytology specimens with squamous abnormalities and corresponding histology from 97 women with subsequent colposcopy and biopsy were included. The specimens were then subjected to the dual stain and Roche Cobas 4800 multiplex real time PCR HPV DNA testing. The sensitivity and specificity of the dual stain and HPV testing were calculated using CIN 2+ on histology as a reference standard.
RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of the dual stain in detecting histology proven CIN 2+ was 93.7% and 76.5% while HPV testing was 85.7% and 14.7% respectively. Of the 44 women with ASCUS or LSIL on cytology, the dual stain also reduced the number of unnecessary colposcopy referrals from 27 to 7 when used as a triage marker compared to HPV testing.
CONCLUSION: p16/Ki-67 dual stain was more sensitive and specific than HPV testing in determining the presence of CIN 2+ on histology. It could triage low grade cervico-vaginal specimens more effectively and potentially help women avoid unnecessary colposcopies. Future studies are needed to further evaluate its role in cervical cancer screening programmes.
METHODOLOGY: MCM2, 4, 5 and 7 genes expression profiles were evaluated in three cervical tissue samples each of normal cervix, human papillomavirus (HPV)-infected low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL), high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), using Human Transcriptome Array 2.0 and validated by nCounter® PanCancer Pathway NanoString Array. Immunohistochemical expression of MCM2 protein was semi-quantitatively assessed by histoscore in tissue microarrays containing 9 cases of normal cervix, 10 LSIL, 10 HSIL and 42 cases of SCC.
RESULTS: MCM2, 4, 5 and 7 genes expressions were upregulated with increasing fold change during the progression from LSIL to HSIL and the highest in SCC. MCM2 gene had the highest fold change in SCC compared to normal cervix. Immunohistochemically, MCM2 protein was localised in the nuclei of basal cells of normal cervical epithelium and dysplastic-neoplastic cells of CIN and SCC. There was a significant difference in MCM2 protein expression between the histological groups (P = 0.039), and histoscore was the highest in HSIL compared to normal cervix (P = 0.010).
CONCLUSION: The upregulation of MCM genes expressions in cervical carcinogenesis reaffirms MCM as a proliferative marker in DNA replication pathway, whereby proliferation of dysplastic and cancer cells become increasingly dysregulated and uncontrolled. A strong expression of MCM2 protein in HSIL may aid as a concatenated screening tool in detecting pre-cancerous cervical lesions.