OBJECTIVE: To examine the presence of HHV-6 in cervical carcinoma.
STUDY DESIGN: Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded cervical carcinoma tissues were examined for the presence of HHV-6 by immunohistochemistry using two monoclonal antibodies that react to HHV-6-encoded p41/38 and gp116/64/54. In situ hybridization with variant-specific probes were used to type the HHV-6 DNA sequences present.
RESULTS: A total of 14/26 (53.9%) carcinoma tissue specimens and 5/8 (62.5%) normal tissue specimens were positive for viral antigens. In situ hybridization studies revealed the presence of HHV-6 DNA sequences in 10/26 (38.5%) carcinoma tissue specimens and 1/8 (12.5%) normal tissue specimens. In the normal tissue, the HHV-6 was present in the endocervical ciliated columnar-epithelial cells and some cells in the subepithelial mucosa but in the carcinoma, the transformed cells were positive for the virus.
CONCLUSIONS: HHV-6 viral proteins and DNA were found in more than one third of the cervical tissue examined suggesting possible viral expression in these tumours. The significance of the distribution and role of the HHV-6 in cervical tissue remains unclear. Since HHV-6 has an oncogenic potential, the virus may cooperate with other transforming agents for the progression of the disease.
METHODS: The following electronic resources were searched: Medline @EBSCOHOST(Medline), Embase, PubMed, and CINAHL databases. Manual searches were also conducted. The main outcome of interest was the acceptability of HPV DNA testing by self-sampling in comparison with clinician-collected sampling.
RESULTS: In total, 23 articles were included in this systematic review. The majority (19 studies) were quantitative intervention studies and 4 studies were qualitative observational studies. Eleven studies reported a preference for self-sampling by women compared with clinician-collected sampling (64.7%-93%). The remaining studies found that women preferred clinician-collected sampling because mainly of respondents' lack of confidence in their ability to complete self-sampling correctly. In most articles reviewed, the studied associated factors, such as demographic factors (age, marital status, and ethnicity), socioeconomic factors (income, education level), reproductive factors (condom use, number of children, current use of contraception, and number of partners), and habits (smoking status) were not found to be significantly associated with preference.
CONCLUSIONS: Both methods of sampling were found to be acceptable to women. Self-sampling is cost-effective and could increase the screening coverage among underscreened populations. However, more information about the quality, reliability, and accuracy of self-sampling is needed to increase women's confidence about using to this method.