Obstet Gynecol Sci Search

CLOSE


Obstet Gynecol Sci > Volume 63(5); 2020 > Article
Ouh, Cho, Kim, Min, Lee, Song, Lee, Lee, and Hong: Risk factors for type-specific persistence of high-risk human papillomavirus and residual/recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after surgical treatment

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the clinicopathologic risk factors for type-specific persistence of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) and residual/recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) after surgical treatment.

Methods

Patients with CIN-2/3 who underwent conization or loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) at Korea University Hospital were enrolled. All patients underwent hrHPV testing and genotyping before conization or LEEP followed by both hrHPV genotyping and cytology. The significance of associations between patient characteristics and persistence of infection were assessed by multivariate logistic regression analyses.

Results

Among 398 women with pathologically confirmed CIN-2/3, 154 (38.7%) patients showed hrHPV persistence after surgical treatment. In multivariate analysis, high preoperative hrHPV load (P<0.05; odds ratio [OR], 2.063), presence of CIN-2 at treatment (P<0.01; OR, 2.732), and multiple hrHPV infections (P<0.001; OR, 4.752) were associated with hrHPV persistence. HPV 53 was the most likely to persist after treatment (24/43, 55.8%). The risk of residual/recurrent CIN-2/3 was higher in persistent infection with HPV 16 than other types (P<0.05). Menopause (P<0.001; OR, 3.969), preoperative and postoperative hrHPV load (P<0.05; OR, 2.430; P<0.05; OR, 5.351), and infection with multiple hrHPV types (P<0.05; OR, 2.345) were significantly related to residual/recurrent CIN following surgical treatment.

Conclusion

HPV load before treatment and infection with multiple hrHPV types were predictors of postoperative hrHPV persistence. HPV 53 was the type most likely to persist, but HPV 16 was the type that was most closely associated with residual/recurrent CIN-2/3.

Introduction

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) is caused by persistent infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) and is a precursor of cervical cancer [1]. Persistent infection with hrHPV is the direct cause of the vast majority of CINs and invasive cervical cancers [2]. Age, parity, smoking, sexual behavior, and socioeconomic status have been reported as potential factors mediating persistent infection by hrHPV [3].
The standard treatment for CINs, especially high-grade lesions, is conization or the loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) [4]. Even if the lesion is completely removed, these patients have a higher risk for recurrence of high-grade lesions compared to the general population [5]. Because of this potential risk, close monitoring after surgical treatment for CIN is standard practice. Screening for patients at risk of residual/recurrent high-grade lesions using combined testing for hrHPV with cytology has a negative predictive value of 99% [6,7]. Detection of HPV infection has been highlighted as an objective marker with high sensitivity in screening or follow-up, as there is less interobserver variability compared to cytology testing alone [8]. High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs) with hrHPV infection have been demonstrated to be highly predictive of invasive cervical cancer [7,9].
It is well established that persistent infection by HPV after conization is a precursor for relapse of CINs. Patients tested as HPV- after conization had a 6.5% risk of residual/recurrent high-grade lesions, while those tested as HPV+ had a 60.9% risk [10]. Determining the characteristics and risk factors for HPV persistence after CIN treatment has implications for the early detection and treatment of high-grade lesions and cervical cancer, as well as for our understanding of the natural history of HPV infection. Several studies have analyzed persistent infection by HPV and residual/recurrent CINs after conization or LEEP [3,11-14]. However, specific HPV genotypes have different natural histories, and individual phylogenetic species have different carcinogenicities. In terms of HPV persistence, therefore, a detailed analysis of specific HPV genotypes can help expand our understanding of the nature of HPV infections [15].
In this study, we aimed to analyze genotype-specific persistence of HPV and persistence/recurrence of CIN after surgery in patients that underwent hrHPV genotyping before and after conization or LEEP.

Materials and methods

1. Study population and inclusion criteria

A flowchart of participant enrollment is provided in Fig. 1. A retrospective analysis was performed on 1,029 patients who underwent conization or LEEP at Korea University Guro Hospital and Anam Hospital between January 2014 and September 2018. We included patients for whom information on HPV genotypes before and after surgical treatment was available. Of these 1,029 patients, 504 were excluded because of preoperative negative hrHPV or lack of HPV data. The remaining 525 patients were documented to have hrHPV based on the AnyplexTM II (Seegene, Seoul, Korea) HPV genotyping test before operation. Patients with histologically confirmed CIN of grade 2/3 through punch biopsy were included. Of the remaining 525 patients, 31 and 19 were excluded due to diagnosis of VAIN or CIN-1, and due to invasive cervical cancer respectively. Finally, of the remaining 475 patients, 77 were lost to follow-up for HPV DNA testing after conization or LEEP, resulting in a total enrollment of 398 patients for this study.
Conization was performed using the surgeon’s choice of cold-knife or Bovie blade after the application of Lugols’ iodine solution to confirm previous cervical lesions. Hemostasis was then achieved with electric coagulation.
Postoperative follow-up was done between 3-6 months after surgical treatment, and follow-up visits occurred every 6-12 months thereafter. Patients underwent cervical inspections, HPV DNA genotyping tests, and cervical cytology. Papanicolaou smears were interpreted by the Bethesda system and histologic diagnoses of excised specimens were based on the World Health Organization classification.

2. Human papillomavirus (HPV) test with Anyplex™ II

We extracted HPV DNA in accordance with the manufacturer’s guidelines. Nucleic acids were extracted from 400 μL of sample using the MICROLAB STARlet automated purification system (Hamilton, Reno, NV, USA). HPV detection and genotyping were performed using an Anyplex II HPV28 and CFX96 real-time thermocycler (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions [16]. The Anyplex II HPV28 has been shown to perform comparably to the Roche Cobas 4800 HPV assay (Cobas) (Roche Molecular diagnostics, Branchburg, NJ, USA) and the HR Hybrid Capture 2 (Qiagen, Gaithersburg, MD, USA), which are accredited for cervical cancer screening and detection of hrHPV [16,17]. Furthermore, Anyplex II HPV28 is considered a reliable and validated test for detecting hrHPV genotypes [18].

3. Human papillomavirus (HPV) persistence and genotype-specific persistence

Persistent hrHPV infection was defined as the presence of hrHPV at the first follow-up visit after surgery regardless of HPV type. HPV type-specific persistence was defined as the presence of the same HPV type before surgery and at the first follow-up visit after surgery. Multiple HPV infections in a patient were considered separate units when analyzing the HPV type-specific persistence rate. Patients who were HPV negative at the first follow-up visit, or had cleared all HPV types present before surgery, were defined as being clear of HPV infection.

4. Statistical analysis

The Chi Square (χ2) and Fisher’s exact tests were used to evaluate the significance of differences in variables between the HPV persistent group and the HPV non-persistent group. The risk for HPV persistence was modelled by logistic regression analysis and is presented as relative risks (odds ratios [ORs]) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Backward stepwise multivariable logistic regression was applied to identify factors independently predictive of persistent/recurrent CIN1+ and CIN2+.
P-values (from 2-sided tests) less than 0.05 were considered significant. Data were analyzed using SPSS software (version 22.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

A total of 398 patients who tested positive for hrHPV and underwent conization or LEEP met the inclusion criteria. The mean number of follow-up visits was 2.8 (range 1-7) and median follow-up period was 17.3 (range 4-48) months. Overall, the prevalent hrHPV genotypes were HPV 16 (n=128, 32.2%), HPV 52 (n=80, 20.1%), HPV 58 (n=74, 18.6%), and HPV 53 (n=43, 10.8%). Two hundred thirty-six patients (59.3%) were infected by a single hrHPV type. Of the remaining 162 patients infected with multiple types of hrHPV, 118 patients (29.6%) were infected with 2 hrHPV types, 32 patients (8.0%) were infected with 3 hrHPV types, and 12 patients (3.0%) were infected with more than 4 hrHPV types.
Persistent hrHPV infection after conization or LEEP was identified in 154 patients (38.7%) of the 398 patients enrolled. Baseline characteristics of these patients are presented in Table 1. Mean age at diagnosis was 41.96±12.63 years in patients with hrHPV persistence compared to 38.37±10.57 years in those without hrHPV persistence (P<0.005). Initial results from cervical cytology were not significantly associated with hrHPV persistence (P=0.232). Among patients who did not show hrHPV persistence, 25.4% had ASCUS and 37.3% had ≥HSIL at initial cytology. However, in patients with hrHPV persistence, 26.1% had ASCUS and 32.8% had ≥HSIL. Residual/recurrent CIN2+ occurred in 15 patients (9.7%) with hrHPV persistence, while it did not occur in those without persistent infection. Both patient groups (with and without persistent hrHPV infection) were similar in terms of previous treatment for CIN, type of surgery, glandular involvement, and socioeconomic status including parity and marital status.
Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios for clinical factors selected for multivariable analysis are presented in Table 2. Age ≥50 years (OR, 2.553; 95% CI, 1.406-4.636; P<0.005) and post-menopausal status (OR, 2.577; 95% CI, 1.355-4.899; P<0.01) were risk factors for hrHPV persistence in univariate analysis; however, these factors were not significant in multivariate analysis (P=0.182 and P=0.912). HPV was more likely to persist in patients with CIN-2 than in patients with CIN3 (OR, 2.674; 95% CI, 1.451-5.128; P<0.01). HPV viral load at baseline was an independent predictor of persistence. HPV with a viral copy number >105 at baseline was associated with an increased rate of persistence at 12 months (OR, 2.063; 95% CI, 1.139-3.737; P<0.05). Positive resection margin was not a significant risk factor for hrHPV persistence (OR, 1.319; 95% CI, 0.558-3.121; P<0.01), although it was associated with hrHPV persistence in univariate analysis (OR, 1.936; 95% CI, 1.117-3.353; P<0.05). Furthermore, there was no significant association between hrHPV persistence and socioeconomic status, history of previous treatment, coinfection with low risk HPV, or glandular involvement.
Type-specific persistence of hrHPV was found in 120 of the 398 patients (30.2%). Table 3 shows the rates and patterns of HPV infection according to HPV genotype. HPV 16 was the most prevalent genotype (128/398, 32.2%), followed by HPV 52 and 58. Among 43 patients with HPV 53, 24 (55.8%) showed persistent infection with the same HPV genotype. HPV 58 showed type-specific persistence after surgical treatment in 22 (29.7%) patients, while HPV 52 showed typespecific persistence in 27.5% (22/80) of patients. In contrast, HPV 16 and 18 showed relatively lower rates of type-specific persistence (19/128, 14.8%, and 2/23, 8.7%, respectively). In addition, among 43 patients infected with HPV 53, 36 (83.7%) were co-infected with other hrHPVs, while 40.6% (52/128) of those infected with HPV 16 were co-infected with other hrHPVs.
Fifty-seven patients (14.3%) showed residual/recurrent CIN during follow-up. Table 4 shows the risk factors for residual/recurrent CIN or CIN-2/3 after conization or LEEP. Post-menopausal status (OR, 3.969; 95% CI, 1.733-9.088; P<0.001) and infection with multiple hrHPV types (OR, 2.345; 95% CI, 1.109-4.958; P<0.05) were independent predictors of residual/recurrent CIN. In addition, risk of residual/recurrent CIN that was dependent on viral load was significantly greater in patients with a higher HPV load at baseline (OR, 2.430; 95% CI, 1.135-5.202; P<0.001), and in those with a higher HPV load at 18 months of treatment (OR, 5.351; 95% CI, 1.733-9.088; P<0.001). Of 15 patients with persistent or recurrent CIN-2/3 after conization or LEEP, CIN-2 lesions were found in 5 patients and CIN-3 lesions in 10 patients. Highly significant predicators of persistent or recurrent CIN-2/3 were menopause (OR, 4.31; 95% CI, 1.154-16.115, P<0.05) and higher HPV load after treatment for 18 months (OR, 4.24; 95% CI 1.201-14.963; P<0.05). In addition, initial CIN grade was also a predictor of residual/recurrent CIN. Patients with CIN-3 were more likely to have residual/recurrent CIN2+ after conization (OR, 10.87; 95% CI, 2.146-55.046; P<0.01). Compared to those with CIN-2 at enrollment, having CIN-3 was a risk factor for persistent or recurrent high-grade cervical precancerous lesions, although CIN-2 but not CIN-3 was a risk factor for persistence of hrHPV.
Detailed characteristics of the 15 patients with residual/recurrent CIN-2/3 are provided in Table 5. The mean age of patients with residual/recurrent CIN-2/3 was 45.1 (25-63) years, which was older than the mean age of all patients (P<0.05). Of these 15 patients, 6 (40.0%) were post-menopausal. The most prevalent hrHPV type was HPV 33, detected in 5 (33.3%) patients, followed by HPV 16 in 4 (26.7%), HPV 18 in 2 (13.3%), HPV 31 in 2 (13.3%), and HPV 52 in 2 (13.3%). Most residual/recurrent CIN-2/3 patients had a viral copy number above 102, except for 1 patient. Eight patients (53.3%) were infected with a single hrHPV type while the remaining 7 (46.7%) patients were infected with multiple hrHPV types. HPV genotyping revealed that 13 of the 15 patients (86.7%) remained positive for the same hrHPV at follow-up, while 2 (13.3%) patients were positive for a different hrHPV at follow-up from the type detected at enrollment. Persistent infection with HPV 16 was associated with a significantly increased risk for residual/recurrent CIN-2/3 compared to other types of HPV (OR, 3.422; 95% CI, 1.092-10.728; P<0.05). Among the 15 patients with residual/recurrent CIN2/3, the histopathologic finding was CIN2 in 3 (20.0%) and CIN-3 in 12 (80.0%) at enrollment. The mean time to diagnosis of residual/recurrent CIN-2/3 was 9.1 (2.1-23.1) months.

Discussion

We aimed to determine which factors affect hrHPV persistence and residual/recurrent CIN after conization or LEEP. There was a significantly increased risk for persistence of hrHPV in patients with high preoperative HPV load and multiple hrHPV types. In addition, patients diagnosed with CIN-2 were at higher risk for hrHPV persistence than those diagnosed with CIN-3. HPV 16 was the most prevalent hrHPV genotype however; we found relatively higher persistence rates of HPV 53, 58, and 52 than HPV 16 or 18. We also found increased risk for residual/recurrent CIN-2/3 in patients who were postmenopausal or had higher postoperative HPV load. Patients with CIN-3 were at higher risk for residual/recurrent CIN-2/3 than CIN-2. The risk of residual/recurrent CIN-2/3 was higher in patients with persistent infection with HPV 16 than other HPV types. Our data support the usefulness of hrHPV genotyping and viral load testing before and after conization or LEEP to manage patients with CIN.
Consistent with previous studies, we observed that 38.7% of patients were positive for hrHPV after conization or LEEP [19,20]. However, the range of hrHPV persistence rates previously reported (7.8-17.4) were lower than what we observed [11,14,21]. The higher persistence rate in our study compared to other studies may be due to different definitions of hrHPV persistence. We defined hrHPV persistence as the presence of hrHPV at the first follow-up visit after surgery, whereas others had different follow-up intervals or defined persistence as positive hrHPV results at 2 or more consecutive visits. Kim et al. [11] detected persistent hrHPV infections in 45.6% of patients who had undergone LEEP with a negative resection margin at 3 months post-surgery, and 14.3% of patients at 6 months post-surgery. In the present study, 7.6% of all patients (15 of 398) were diagnosed with residual/recurrent CIN-2/3 and 9.7% of patients in the hrHPV persistence group (15 of 154) were diagnosed with residual/recurrent CIN-2/3. The median time to diagnosis of residual/recurrent CIN-2/3 was 9.7 months (2.1-23.1).
In our study, viral load was significantly associated with persistence of hrHPV and residual/recurrent CIN-2/3. Similarly, in a French cohort, patients with high viral load were more likely to have persistent hrHPV infections after conization than patients with lower viral load [22]. In addition, postoperative viral load was a predictor of residual/recurrent CIN-2/3. Previous literature found that higher hrHPV viral load at the 6-month follow-up visit was a significant risk factor for residual/recurrent CIN after conization or LEEP [23], which corresponds well with our findings. We found that infection with multiple hrHPV types before treatment increased the risk of persistence of hrHPV This corresponds well with previous research that demonstrated that infection with multiple hrHPV types has not only been found to be associated with increased risk of persistence hrHPV but also CIN-2/3 [24]. Individual hrHPV types function independently in CIN lesions and infection with multiple strains should be interpreted as having a cumulative effect, rather than a synergistic effect [25]. This is consistent with our finding that infection with multiple hrHPV types was associated with hrHPV persistence rather than residual/recurrent CIN-2/3.
Unexpectedly, we found that HPV persistence rates after treatment were higher in patients with CIN-2 than those with CIN-3, which is inconsistent with a previous study report [19]. Although the association between the severity of the cervical precancerous lesion and the risk of persistence is still unknown, patients with lower grade cervical lesions have been shown to have a higher viral load than those with CIN-3 [26]. Higher grade cervical lesions have been shown to contain lower viral DNA loads due to the presence of more immature and dysplastic squamous cells than lower grade lesions [26]. In our study, and consistent with previous findings, although patients with CIN-2 were more likely to show persistence of hrHPV after conization or LEEP, CIN-3 patients were at higher risk for recurrence of CIN-3 than CIN-2 [27].
In multivariate analysis, the hrHPV persistence rates were not affected by the status of resection margin (P=0.528), however a positive resection margin was associated with a 1.94-fold higher risk of hrHPV persistence (P<0.05) in univariate analysis. As several previous studies have pointed out [13,20,28,29], a positive resection margin is the most significant risk factor for predicting hrHPV persistence and residual/recurrent CIN-2/3. However, a negative resection margin does not always indicate complete excision due to the possibility of multifocal lesions. Sarian et al. [3] investigated the association between patient characteristics and hrHPV persistence, and demonstrated using multivariate analysis that smoking and patient age above 35 years were associated with persistent HPV, while a positive resection margin was not. They noted that positive endocervical margins were strongly affected by patient age (>35 years) because of the tendency for the squamous-columnar junction to be deeper inside the cervical canal after menopause. This finding indicates that the association between patient age and resection margin should be taken into consideration in statistical analyses of future studies.
We found that patients infected with HPV 53, HPV 58, and HPV 52 were at relatively higher risk for HPV persistence after treatment than those infected with other HPV types. One previous study [30] reported that α6 species of HPV (HPV 53, 56, 66) were less carcinogenic than other species of hrHPV, as well as being a low risk for progression despite persistence. Persistence of HPV 53 can be explained by the infection of tissues outside the precancerous lesion that are not causally related to the lesion. This may indicate that HPV 53 might not be causally involved, but might be a bystander [1,15]. HPV 52 is the most common type found in CIN-2, while HPV 16 is the most common type in CIN-3 and cervical cancer [30]. HPV 52 is also the most prevalent type in HIVinfected women [31] and is most frequently detected with HPV 16 [32]. Consistent with the most common persistent hrHPV types in our study, So et al. [33] investigated the prevalence and distribution of HPV genotypes in South Korea and reported that the most common types were HPV 53, followed by HPV 52 and HPV 58. In other words, our findings that the above 3 types of hrHPV were the most frequent types in patients with CIN might be due to their tendency to persist after surgical treatment. In agreement with our findings, Gosvig et al. [15], also found that the persistence rate for HPV 16 was lower than that of other carcinogenic HPV types after excision. Since HPV16 and HPV18 are known to be some of the most oncogenic subtypes, they could cause larger lesions, which would be associated with larger ranges of excision.
In our study, 15 patients were diagnosed with residual/recurrent CIN-2/3 during the follow-up period. Among them, 13 patients had persistent infection with the same hrHPV genotypes that they were originally infected. In addition, persistent infection with HPV 16 was significantly associated with residual/recurrent CIN-2/3 (P<0.05). Kang and Kim [34] found that patients with persistent infection with the same hrHPV types pre- and post-surgery, and HPV 18, were at high risk for recurrent CIN-2/3. Similarly, Söderlund-Strand et al. [35] reported that of 5.1% of patients diagnosed with residual/persistent CIN-2/3, all had the same type-specific hrHPV before and after surgery. In other studies, no recurrence was found among patients infected with newly-detected hrHPV types [36]. These results suggest that special attention should be paid to persistent infection after conization or LEEP with the same hrHPV type as was present before surgery.
The association between patients’ age and HPV persistence is still controversial. While, some previous studies found no correlation between patients’ age and HPV persistence or recurrent CIN after LEEP [37,38], one study reported that older patients with CIN lesions were at higher risk for HPV persistence [19]. In our study, menopause was a risk factor for persistent/recurrent CIN or CIN2+ after surgical treatment. The association between menopause and CIN persistence/recurrence may be explained by the fact that the squamouscolumnar junction of post-menopausal women is deeper within the cervical canal than that of pre-menopausal women. This location change in post-menopausal women would consequently interfere with complete hrHPV eradication or CIN removal due to limited resection depth. In addition, postmenopausal women may have a decreased immune response to HPV infection compared to pre-menopausal women [39].
The strengths of this study include our ability to perform HPV genotyping of all patients before and after conization or LEEP. Consequently, we could assess the associations between patient characteristics, including hrHPV types, hrHPV persistence, and residual/recurrent CIN-2/3, accurately. The limitations of our study include its retrospective design, relatively small sample size, and short follow-up duration. However, Elfgren et al. [40] reported that clearance of HPV DNA was rapid and usually occurred within 6 months of treatment, with little additional clearance after 6 months, therefore a longer term follow-up may not have altered our findings. In addition, the patient’s desire to become pregnant in future, could have influenced the cone depth or width during surgery; however, we could not consider this in our analysis. Finally, other factors affecting hrHPV persistence, or residual/recurrent CIN, such as a history of social behavior including smoking, were not evaluated.
In conclusion, our study contributes to the knowledge of the postoperative progress of hrHPV infection and CIN recurrence. We demonstrated that preoperative viral load and infection with multiple hrHPV types are important predictors of hrHPV persistence. HPV 53 was the most persistent type, whereas infection with HPV 16 was associated with the highest risk for residual/recurrent CIN-2/3. Post-menopausal women need to be monitored closely because of their high risk for residual/recurrent CIN. Longer-term and larger-scale studies are necessary to validate our results.

Notes

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Korea University Guro Hospital (No. 2019GR0123).

Patient consent

Anonymized and de-identified information for participants was used for analysis, so the requirement for informed consent or parental permission was waived.

Fig. 1.
Composition of enrolled patients’ population. LEEP, loop electrosurgical excision procedure; hrHPV, high risk human papillomavirus; VAIN, vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia; CIN, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
ogs-20049f1.jpg
Table 1.
Overview of patient characteristics based on the postoperative human papillomavirus (HPV) status
Characteristics Postop hrHPV persistence (until 12 mon)
P-value
Negative (n=244, 61.3) Positive (n=154, 38.7)
Age (yr) 38.37±10.57 41.96±12.63 <0.005
Parity 0 100 (41.0) 63 (40.9) 0.988
≥1 144 (59.0) 91 (59.1)
Menopause No 212 (86.9) 114 (74.0) <0.005
Yes 32 (13.1) 40 (26.0)
Marital status No 77 (31.6) 58 (37.7) 0.210
Yes 167 (68.4) 96 (62.3)
Previous treatment. No 239 (98.0) 150 (97.4) 0.739
Yes 5 (2.0) 4 (2.6)
Preoperative HPV loada) + 6 (2.5) 2 (1.3) <0.005
++ 123 (50.4) 49 (31.8)
+++ 82 (33.6) 77 (50.0)
Unknown 33 (13.5) 26 (16.9)
Multiplicity of HPV Single 177 (72.5) 59 (38.3) <0.001
Multiple 67 (27.5) 95 (61.7)
Co-infection with low-risk HPV No 215 (88.1) 108 (70.1) <0.001
Yes 29 (11.9) 46 (29.9)
Cytology Normal 6 (2.5) 1 (0.7) 0.232
ASCUS 62 (25.4) 40 (26.1)
LSIL 48 (19.7) 44 (28.8)
ASC-H 37 (15.2) 17 (11.1)
HSIL 87 (35.7) 49 (32.0)
AGUS 2 (0.8) 0 (0.0)
SCC 2 (0.8) 2 (0.8)
CIN at treatment CIN 2 71 (29.1) 79 (51.3) <0.001
CIN 3 173 (70.9) 75 (48.7)
Type of surgery LEEP 81 (33.3) 62 (40.3) 0.161
Conization 162 (66.7) 92 (59.7)
Resection margin Negative 214 (88.1) 122 (79.2) <0.05
Positive 29 (11.9) 32 (20.8)
Endocervical resection margin Negative 200 (94.3) 136 (88.3) <0.05
Positive 14 (5.7) 18 (11.7)
Glandular involvement No 118 (48.4) 82 (53.2) 0.342
Yes 126 (51.6) 72 (46.8)
Follow-up cytology Normal/ASCUS/LSIL 240 (98.4) 133 (86.4) <0.001
ASC-H/HSIL 4 (1.6) 21 (13.6)
CIN persistence/recurrence No 239 (98.0) 102 (66.2) <0.001
Yes 5 (2.0) 52 (33.8)
CIN 2+ persistence/recurrence No 244 (100.0) 139 (90.3) <0.001
Yes 0 (0.0) 15 (9.7)

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).

hrHPV, high-risk human papillomavirus; ASCUS, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance; LSIL, low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; ASC-H, atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude HSIL; HSIL, high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; AGUS, atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; CIN, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; LEEP, loop electrosurgical excision procedure.

a) HPV viral copy number. +, <102; ++, 102-105; +++, >105.

Table 2.
Risk factors associated with high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) persistence after surgical treatment
Characteristics Univariate
Multivariate
OR 95% CI P-value OR 95% CI P-value
Age (yr) ≥50 2.553 1.406-4.636 <0.005 2.486 0.652-9.494 0.182
<50
Parity ≥1 0.811 0.512-1.284 0.372
0
Menopause Yes 2.577 1.355-4.899 <0.010 1.085 0.257-4.586 0.912
No
Marriage Yes 0.763 0.500-1.165 0.211
No
Previous treatment Yes 1.151 0.303-4.374 0.836
No
Preoperative HPV loada) +++ 2.231 1.329-3.746 <0.010 2.063 1.139-3.737 <0.050
+-++
Multiplicity of HPV Multiple 4.402 2.713-7.144 <0.001 4.752 2.593-8.710 <0.001
Single
Co-infection with low risk HPV Yes 2.917 1.603-5.307 <0.001 1.584 0.750-3.344 0.228
No
Follow-up cytology ASC-H/HSIL/SCC 0.797 0.505-1.256 0.327
Normal/ASCUS/LSIL
CIN at treatment CIN 2 2.674 1.656-4.310 <0.001 2.732 1.451-5.128 <0.010
CIN 3
Type of surgery Conization 0.884 0.561-1.395 0.597
LEEP
Resection margin Positive 1.936 1.117-3.353 <0.05 1.319 0.558-3.121 0.528
Negative
Glandular involvement Yes 0.762 0.484-1.201 0.242
No

OR, odd ratio; CI, confidence interval; HPV, human papillomavirus; ASC-H, atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude HSIL; HSIL, high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; ASCUS, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance; LSIL, low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; CIN, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; LEEP, loop electrosurgical excision procedure.

a) HPV viral copy number. +, <102; ++, 102-105; +++, >105.

Table 3.
Human papillomavirus (HPV) genotype-specific rate of persistence and multiple infectiona)
Types HPV genotypes before conization or LEEP Persistence of the same type after conization Multiple hrHPV infection before conization or LEEP
HPV 16 128 (32.2) 19 (14.8) 52 (40.6)
HPV 18 23 (5.8) 2 (8.7) 17 (73.9)
HPV 31 33 (8.3) 8 (24.2) 17 (51.5)
HPV 33 42 (10.6) 9 (21.4) 23 (54.8)
HPV 52 80 (20.1) 22 (27.5) 43 (53.8)
HPV 53 43 (10.8) 24 (55.8) 36 (83.7)
HPV 58 74 (18.6) 22 (29.7) 46 (62.2)
HPV others 41 (10.3) 6 (14.6) 7 (17.1)

Values are presented as number (%).

hrHPV, high-risk human papillomavirus; LEEP, loop electrosurgical excision procedure.

a) Persistence of the same type after conization or LEEP was found in 120 of 398 (30.2%) patients.

Table 4.
Logistic regression results for predicting the residual/recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or CIN-2/3 after conization or loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) (n=57)
Variables Values Multivariate
OR 95% CI P-value
CIN after conization or LEEP (n=57)
 Menopause Yes 19/72 (26.4) 3.969 1.733-9.088 <0.001
No 38/326 (11.7)
 Preop HPV loada) +++ 30/159 (18.9) 2.430 1.135-5.202 <0.050
+-++ 18/178 (10.1)
unknown 9/61 (14.8)
 Postop HPV loada)b) +++ 18/35 (51.4) 5.351 1.091-26.236 <0.050
+-++ 27/100 (27.0)
Negative 12/244 (4.9)
 Multiplicity of HPV Multiple 31/162 (19.1) 2.345 1.109-4.958 <0.050
Single 26/236 (11.0)
CIN 2/3 after conization or LEEP (n=15)
 Menopause Yes 6/72 (8.3) 4.31 1.154-16.115 <0.050
No 9/326 (2.8)
 Pathology before conization or LEEP CIN 3 12/248 (4.8) 10.87 2.146-55.046 <0.010
CIN 2 3/150 (2.0)
 Postop HPV loada)b) +++ 7/35 (20.0) 4.24 1.201-14.963 <0.050
+-++ 7/100 (7.0)

Values are presented as number (%).

HPV, human papillomavirus; LEEP, loop electrosurgical excision procedure; CI, confidence interval.

a) HPV viral copy number. +, <102; ++, 102-105; +++, >105;

b) Within 18 months after treatment.

Table 5.
Characteristics of women showing residual/recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)-2/3 after treatment
No. Age (yr) Parity Menopause HPV loada) HPV Type Treatment Cytology Pathology RM GI Follow up
Time to diagnosis of residual/recurrent CIN 2/3 (mon)
HPV Type change Cytology Path
1 25 0 No +++ 161,833 Cone ASCUS CIN 2 - - 161,833 - HSIL CIN2 11.7
2 27 0 No +++ 3,339 LEEP ASCUS CIN 3 + - 16 + LSIL CIN3 8.4
3 27 0 No ++ 52 Cone HSIL CIN 3 + + 52 - ASCUS CIN3 9.3
4 38 1 No ++ 1,618 LEEP ASCUS CIN 3 - + 183,553 - ASCUS CIN2 23.1
5 40 2 No ++ 33 Cone HSIL CIN 3 + + 33 - HSIL CIN3 13.3
6 41 2 No ++ 33 Cone HSIL CIN 3 - + 3,556 + ASCUS CIN2 12.5
7 42 1 No +++ 31 Cone LSIL CIN 3 + + 3,159 - HSIL CIN3 7.7
8 45 4 No +++ 16 Cone HSIL CIN 3 - + 16 - HSIL CIN3 9.5
9 49 1 No ++ 5,868 Cone HSIL CIN 3 - - 5,868 - HSIL CIN3 2.1
10 52 2 Yes ++ 31 Cone HSIL CIN 3 + + 31 - ASCUS CIN3 13.3
11 56 2 Yes ++ 5,358 LEEP HSIL CIN 2 - - 5,358 - LSIL CIN2 4.4
12 56 2 Yes +++ 16 Cone HSIL CIN 2 - - 16 - ASCUS CIN3 6.7
13 57 2 Yes ++ 1,635 LEEP SCC CIN 3 - - 1,635 - HSIL CIN2 4.3
14 59 2 Yes ++ 3,352 LEEP HSIL CIN 3 - - 3,352 - HSIL CIN3 5.7
15 63 3 Yes + 45 LEEP HSIL CIN 3 - + 45 - HSIL CIN3 4.7

HPV, human papillomavirus; RM, resection margin; GI, glandular involvement; Path, pathology; Cone, conization; ASCUS, atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance; HSIL, high-grade intraepithelial lesion; LEEP, loop electrosurgical excision procedure; LSIL, low-grade intraepithelial lesion; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma.

a) HPV viral copy number. +, <102; ++, 102-105; +++, >105.

References

1. Schiffman M, Herrero R, Desalle R, Hildesheim A, Wacholder S, Rodriguez AC, et al. The carcinogenicity of human papillomavirus types reflects viral evolution. Virology 2005;337:76-84.
crossref pmid
2. Del Río-Ospina L, Soto-DE León SC, Camargo M, Sánchez R, Moreno-Pérez DA, Pérez-Prados A, et al. Multiple high-risk HPV genotypes are grouped by type and are associated with viral load and risk factors. Epidemiol Infect 2017;145:1479-90.
crossref pmid
3. Sarian LO, Derchain SF, Pitta DR, Morais SS, RabeloSantos SH. Factors associated with HPV persistence after treatment for high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia with large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ). J Clin Virol 2004;31:270-4.
crossref pmid
4. Massad LS, Einstein MH, Huh WK, Katki HA, Kinney WK, Schiffman M, et al. 2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:829-46.
crossref pmid
5. Melnikow J, McGahan C, Sawaya GF, Ehlen T, Coldman A. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia outcomes after treatment: long-term follow-up from the British Columbia Cohort Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:721-8.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
6. Venturoli S, Ambretti S, Cricca M, Leo E, Costa S, Musiani M, et al. Correlation of high-risk human papillomavirus genotypes persistence and risk of residual or recurrent cervical disease after surgical treatment. J Med Virol 2008;80:1434-40.
crossref pmid
7. Alonso I, Torné A, Puig-Tintoré LM, Esteve R, Quinto L, Campo E, et al. Pre- and post-conization high-risk HPV testing predicts residual/recurrent disease in patients treated for CIN 2-3. Gynecol Oncol 2006;103:631-6.
crossref pmid
8. Kocken M, Uijterwaal MH, de Vries AL, Berkhof J, Ket JC, Helmerhorst TJ, et al. High-risk human papillomavirus testing versus cytology in predicting post-treatment disease in women treated for high-grade cervical disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2012;125:500-7.
crossref pmid
9. Kitchener HC, Walker PG, Nelson L, Hadwin R, Patnick J, Anthony GB, et al. HPV testing as an adjunct to cytology in the follow up of women treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. BJOG 2008;115:1001-7.
crossref pmid
10. Kocken M, Helmerhorst TJ, Berkhof J, Louwers JA, Nobbenhuis MA, Bais AG, et al. Risk of recurrent highgrade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after successful treatment: a long-term multi-cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:441-50.
crossref pmid
11. Kim YT, Lee JM, Hur SY, Cho CH, Kim YT, Kim SC, et al. Clearance of human papillomavirus infection after successful conization in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Cancer 2010;126:1903-9.
crossref pmid
12. Aerssens A, Claeys P, Beerens E, Garcia A, Weyers S, Van Renterghem L, et al. Prediction of recurrent disease by cytology and HPV testing after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Cytopathology 2009;20:27-35.
crossref pmid
13. Lubrano A, Medina N, Benito V, Arencibia O, Falcón JM, Leon L, et al. Follow-up after LLETZ: a study of 682 cases of CIN 2-CIN 3 in a single institution. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2012;161:71-4.
crossref pmid
14. Song SH, Lee JK, Oh MJ, Hur JY, Na JY, Park YK, et al. Persistent HPV infection after conization in patients with negative margins. Gynecol Oncol 2006;101:418-22.
crossref pmid
15. Gosvig CF, Huusom LD, Andersen KK, Iftner A, Cederkvist L, Svare E, et al. Persistence and reappearance of high-risk human papillomavirus after conization. Gynecol Oncol 2013;131:661-6.
crossref pmid
16. Kwon MJ, Roh KH, Park H, Woo HY. Comparison of the Anyplex II HPV28 assay with the Hybrid Capture 2 assay for the detection of HPV infection. J Clin Virol 2014;59:246-9.
crossref pmid
17. Phillips S, Cornall AM, Machalek DA, Garland SM, Bateson D, Garefalakis M, et al. Comparison of the Roche Cobas® 4800 HPV assay to Roche Amplicor for detection of high-risk human papillomavirus. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2016;35:1305-7.
crossref pmid pdf
18. Jung S, Lee B, Lee KN, Kim Y, Oh EJ. Clinical validation of Anyplex II HPV HR detection test for cervical cancer screening in Korea. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2016;140:276-80.
crossref pmid pdf
19. Costa S, De Simone P, Venturoli S, Cricca M, Zerbini ML, Musiani M, et al. Factors predicting human papillomavirus clearance in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia lesions treated by conization. Gynecol Oncol 2003;90:358-65.
crossref pmid
20. Stensen S, Kjaer SK, Jensen SM, Frederiksen K, Junge J, Iftner T, et al. Factors associated with type-specific persistence of high-risk human papillomavirus infection: A population-based study. Int J Cancer 2016;138:361-8.
crossref pmid
21. Kong TW, Son JH, Chang SJ, Paek J, Lee Y, Ryu HS. Value of endocervical margin and high-risk human papillomavirus status after conization for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, adenocarcinoma in situ, and microinvasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Gynecol Oncol 2014;135:468-73.
crossref pmid
22. Dalstein V, Riethmuller D, Prétet JL, Le Bail Carval K, Sautière JL, Carbillet JP, et al. Persistence and load of highrisk HPV are predictors for development of high-grade cervical lesions: a longitudinal French cohort study. Int J Cancer 2003;106:396-403.
crossref pmid
23. Bae JH, Kim CJ, Park TC, Namkoong SE, Park JS. Persistence of human papillomavirus as a predictor for treatment failure after loop electrosurgical excision procedure. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2007;17:1271-7.
crossref pmid
24. Schmitt M, Dondog B, Waterboer T, Pawlita M, Tommasino M, Gheit T. Abundance of multiple high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infections found in cervical cells analyzed by use of an ultrasensitive HPV genotyping assay. J Clin Microbiol 2010;48:143-9.
crossref pmid
25. Chaturvedi AK, Katki HA, Hildesheim A, Rodríguez AC, Quint W, Schiffman M, et al. Human papillomavirus infection with multiple types: pattern of coinfection and risk of cervical disease. J Infect Dis 2011;203:910-20.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
26. Sherman ME, Wang SS, Wheeler CM, Rich L, Gravitt PE, Tarone R, et al. Determinants of human papillomavirus load among women with histological cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: dominant impact of surrounding low-grade lesions. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12:1038-44.
pmid
27. Papoutsis D, Underwood M, Parry-Smith W, Panikkar J. Does CIN2 have the same aggressive potential as CIN3? A Secondary analysis of high-grade cytology recurrence in women treated with cold-coagulation cervical treatment. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2017;77:284-9.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
28. Pirtea L, Grigoraş D, Matusz P, Pirtea M, Moleriu L, Tudor A, et al. Age and HPV type as risk factors for HPV persistence after loop excision in patients with high grade cervical lesions: an observational study. BMC Surg 2016;16:70.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
29. Rizzuto I, Nalam M, Jiang J, Linder A, Rufford B. Risk factors for HPV persistence and cytology anomalies at follow-up after treatment for cervical dysplasia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018;141:240-4.
crossref pmid
30. So KA, Lee IH, Lee KH, Hong SR, Kim YJ, Seo HH, et al. Human papillomavirus genotype-specific risk in cervical carcinogenesis. J Gynecol Oncol 2019;30:e52.
crossref pmid pmc
31. Aho J, Hankins C, Tremblay C, Forest P, Pourreaux K, Rouah F, et al. Genomic polymorphism of human papillomavirus type 52 predisposes toward persistent infection in sexually active women. J Infect Dis 2004;190:46-52.
crossref pmid pdf
32. Kavanagh K, Pollock KG, Potts A, Love J, Cuschieri K, Cubie H, et al. Introduction and sustained high coverage of the HPV bivalent vaccine leads to a reduction in prevalence of HPV 16/18 and closely related HPV types. Br J Cancer 2014;110:2804-11.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
33. So KA, Hong JH, Lee JK. Human papillomavirus prevalence and type distribution among 968 women in South Korea. J Cancer Prev 2016;21:104-9.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
34. Kang WD, Kim SM. Human papillomavirus genotyping as a reliable prognostic marker of recurrence after loop electrosurgical excision procedure for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2-3) especially in postmenopausal women. Menopause 2016;23:81-6.
crossref pmid
35. Söderlund-Strand A, Kjellberg L, Dillner J. Human papillomavirus type-specific persistence and recurrence after treatment for cervical dysplasia. J Med Virol 2014;86:634-41.
crossref pmid
36. Kreimer AR, Katki HA, Schiffman M, Wheeler CM, Castle PE; ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study Group. Viral determinants of human papillomavirus persistence following loop electrical excision procedure treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16:11-6.
crossref pmid
37. Nam K, Chung S, Kim J, Jeon S, Bae D. Factors associated with HPV persistence after conization in patients with negative margins. J Gynecol Oncol 2009;20:91-5.
crossref pmid pmc
38. Park JY, Lee KH, Dong SM, Kang S, Park SY, Seo SS. The association of pre-conization high-risk HPV load and the persistence of HPV infection and persistence/recurrence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after conization. Gynecol Oncol 2008;108:549-54.
crossref pmid
39. Moscicki AB, Schiffman M, Burchell A, Albero G, Giuliano AR, Goodman MT, et al. Updating the natural history of human papillomavirus and anogenital cancers. Vaccine 2012;30 Suppl 5:F24-33.
crossref pmid
40. Elfgren K, Jacobs M, Walboomers JM, Meijer CJ, Dillner J. Rate of human papillomavirus clearance after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:965-71.
pmid


ABOUT
ARTICLE & TOPICS
Article category

Browse all articles >

Topics

Browse all articles >

BROWSE ARTICLES
POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS
Editorial Office
4th Floor, 36 Gangnam-daero 132-gil, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06044, Korea
Tel: +82-2-3445-2382    Fax: +82-2-3445-2440    E-mail: journal@ogscience.org                

Copyright © 2020 by Korean Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. All rights reserved.

Developed in M2community

Close layer
prev next