Prevalence and determinants of human papillomavirus infection and cervical lesions in HIV-positive women in Kenya

Background: We assessed the association of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) with various characteristics, CD4 count and use of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) among HIV-positive women. Methods: Cross-sectional study of 498 HIV-positive women who underwent HPV PCR-based testing, cytology, and systematic cervical biopsy. Results: In all, 68.7% of women were HPV-positive, 52.6% had high-risk (hr) HPV, and 40.2% multiple type infections. High-risk human papillomavirus-positivity did not vary significantly by age but it was negatively associated with education level. The most frequent types in 113 CIN2/3 were HPV16 (26.5%), HPV35 (19.5%), and HPV58 (12.4%). CD4 count was negatively associated with prevalence of hrHPV (Po0.001) and CIN2/3 among non-users of cART (P¼0.013). Combination antiretroviral therapies users (X2 year) had lower hrHPV prevalence (prevalence ratio (PR) vs non-users¼0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61–0.96) and multiple infections (PR¼0.68, 95% CI: 0.53–0.88), but not fewer CIN2/3. The positive predictive value of hrHPV-positivity for CIN2/3 increased from 28.9% at age o35 years to 53.3% in X45 years. Conclusion: The burden of hrHPV and CIN2/3 was high and it was related to immunosuppression level. Combination antiretroviral therapies (X2 year) use had a favourable effect on hrHPV prevalence but cART in our population may have been started too late to prevent CIN2/3

Human papillomavirus infection in Bhutan at the moment of implementation of a national HPV vaccination programme

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the most common female cancer in Bhutan, the first low/middle-income country to implement a national human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programme. METHODS: To provide a robust baseline for future evaluations of vaccine effectiveness, cervical cell specimens were obtained from 2,505 women aged 18–69 years from the general population, and biopsies from 211 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3) and 112 invasive cervical cancer (ICC) cases. Samples were tested for HPV using GP5+/6+ PCR. RESULTS: Among the general population, HPV prevalence was 26%, being highest (33%) in women ≤24 years, but remaining above 15% in all age-groups. Determinants of HPV included age, marital status, and number of sexual partners. Among the eight percent with cytological abnormalities, 24 CIN3 and 4 ICC were histologically confirmed. Even after additional testing with a sensitive E7 PCR, no infections with vaccine-targeted HPV types were detected in the few vaccinated women (n = 34) compared to 6% prevalence in unvaccinated women of similar age (p = 0 · 215). CONCLUSION: Based upon type-specific prevalence among biopsies, at least 70% of ICC in Bhutan are theoretically preventable by HPV16/18 vaccination, but screening programmes should be expanded among older women, who have an important underlying burden of CIN3 and ICC

Evaluation of human-papillomavirus testing and visual inspection for cervical cancer screening in Rwanda

Background A pilot screening campaign in Rwanda, based on careHPV-testing followed by visual inspection with acetic acid triage (careHPV+VIA triage), was evaluated against other WHO-recommended screening options, namely HPV screen-and-treat and VIA screen-and-treat. Methods 764 women aged 30-69 underwent at visit 1: i) VIA, and cervical cell collection for ii) careHPV in Rwanda, and iii) liquid-based cytology and GP5+/6+ HR-HPV PCR in The Netherlands. All 177 women positive by VIA, careHPV and/or PCR were recalled, of whom 84% attended. At visit 2, VIA was again used to triage screen-positive women for treatment and to obtain biopsies from all women either from visible lesions or at 12 o’clock of the squamocolumnar junction. Cross-sectional screening indices were estimated primarily against histological high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions or worse (hHSIL+), after imputation of missing histology data, based on 1-visit or 2-visit approaches. Results In a 1-visit screen-and-treat approach, VIA had sensitivity and specificity of 41% and 96%, respectively, versus 71% and 88% for careHPV, and 88% and 86% for PCR. In a 2-visit approach (in which hHSIL+ imputed among women without visit 2 were considered untreated) careHPV sensitivity dropped to 59% due to loss of 13% of hHSIL+. For careHPV+VIA triage, sensitivity dropped further to 35%, as another 24% of hHSIL+ were triaged to no treatment. Conclusions CareHPV was not as sensitive as gold-standard PCR, but detected considerably more hHSIL+ than VIA. However, due to careHPV-positive hHSIL+ women being lost to follow-up and/or triaged to no treatment, 2-visit careHPV+VIA triage did not perform better than VIA screen-and-treat

Risk of hematological malignancies among Chernobyl liquidators

International audienceA case-control study of hematological malignancies was conducted among Chernobyl liquidators (accident recovery workers) from Belarus, Russia and Baltic countries to assess the effect of low- to medium-dose protracted radiation exposures on the relative risk of these diseases. The study was nested within cohorts of liquidators who had worked around the Chernobyl plant in 1986-1987. A total of 117 cases [69 leukemia, 34 non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and 14 other malignancies of lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue] and 481 matched controls were included in the study. Individual dose to the bone marrow and uncertainties were estimated for each subject. The main analyses were restricted to 70 cases (40 leukemia, 20 NHL and 10 other) and their 287 matched controls with reliable information on work in the Chernobyl area. Most subjects received very low doses (median 13 mGy). For all diagnoses combined, a significantly elevated OR was seen at doses of 200 mGy and above. The excess relative risk (ERR) per 100 mGy was 0.60 [90% confidence interval (CI) _0.02, 2.35]. The corresponding estimate for leukemia excluding chronic lymphoid leukemia (CLL) was 0.50 (90% CI _0.38, 5.7). It is slightly higher than but statistically compatible with those estimated from A-bomb survivors and recent low-doserate studies. Although sensitivity analyses showed generally similar results, we cannot rule out the possibility that biases and uncertainties could have led to over- or underestimation of the risk in this study