2012
DOI: 10.4238/2012.march.1.3
| View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: ABSTRACT. Human papilloma virus (HPV) is a well-established cause of cervical cancer. While many studies have been performed so far on HPV viral biology, mode of infection and prevention measures, scanty information is available on lesion sites of infected women and the incidence of viral types at specific locations. We looked for a possible relationship between the most common viral types (HPVs 16, 18, 31, 33) found in Recife, PE, Brazil, and lesion sites. We examined 396 HPV-positive women at the Gynecolog… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
10
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
2
10
1
Order By: Relevance
“…And we observed that HPV 18 could be detected as co-infection with other high risk types and all of low risk type was never found as single infection in this study. Although the most three common HPV typedistribution in vulva and Vaginal in our study showed slightly different from the other reports (Ramet et al, 2010;ICO WHO Information center, 2014;Hampl et al, 2007;Baldez da Silva et al, 2012), due to the different HPV detection methods, amount or type of sample collection, population characteristic, etc, but there are several studied reported which found that high risk HPV type such as HPV 16,18,31,33,35,45,51,52,56 or 58 have been associated with vulva, vagina, penis, anus or cervical cancers and abnormal lesions (Giuliano et al, 2008;Baldez da Silva et al, 2012;Hampl et al, 2007;De Vuyst et al, 2009 Otherwise, the variety of population group, sample selection and histological diagnosis results were to be the important factors which were used to be considerable (Hampl et al, 2006;Giuliano et al, 2008) This finding demonstrated that HPV 16 was the most common HPV type present in vulva and Vaginal tissues with abnormal cytology lesions and cancer cells while HPV 18 and the other types showed less frequently for both organs from Thai women and the HPV type distribution of vulva and Vaginal were not variety as cervical cells. However, it is interesting baseline data on HPV prevalence of vulva and Vaginal abnormal/cancer from Thai women, which there are limited evidences available and both of these cancers are more less frequency compared to cervical cancer, although the sample size in this study was small and did not represented overall incidence and prevalence of Thai women population.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…And we observed that HPV 18 could be detected as co-infection with other high risk types and all of low risk type was never found as single infection in this study. Although the most three common HPV typedistribution in vulva and Vaginal in our study showed slightly different from the other reports (Ramet et al, 2010;ICO WHO Information center, 2014;Hampl et al, 2007;Baldez da Silva et al, 2012), due to the different HPV detection methods, amount or type of sample collection, population characteristic, etc, but there are several studied reported which found that high risk HPV type such as HPV 16,18,31,33,35,45,51,52,56 or 58 have been associated with vulva, vagina, penis, anus or cervical cancers and abnormal lesions (Giuliano et al, 2008;Baldez da Silva et al, 2012;Hampl et al, 2007;De Vuyst et al, 2009 Otherwise, the variety of population group, sample selection and histological diagnosis results were to be the important factors which were used to be considerable (Hampl et al, 2006;Giuliano et al, 2008) This finding demonstrated that HPV 16 was the most common HPV type present in vulva and Vaginal tissues with abnormal cytology lesions and cancer cells while HPV 18 and the other types showed less frequently for both organs from Thai women and the HPV type distribution of vulva and Vaginal were not variety as cervical cells. However, it is interesting baseline data on HPV prevalence of vulva and Vaginal abnormal/cancer from Thai women, which there are limited evidences available and both of these cancers are more less frequency compared to cervical cancer, although the sample size in this study was small and did not represented overall incidence and prevalence of Thai women population.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 99%
“…Numerous epidemiological studies found that over 90% of invasive cervical cancer cells contained HPV DNA sequences (Parkin, 2002;Gao et al, 2003;Chaturvedi, 2010;Baldez da Silva et al, 2012;ICO HPV Information center, 2014). In additional, HPV is also reported to be associated with the other lowergenital cancers such as anus, penis, vulva, vaginal etc which showed the various incidence and prevalence of HPV infection between different region worldwide (Gao et al, 2003;Parkin, 2006;Hampl, 2007;Ramet et al, 2010;ICO HPV Information center, 2014).…”
Section: Detection and Type-distribution Of Human Papillomavirus In Vmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The five common frequent HPV types that could be detected in this study were , which have similar pattern with the other reported, as compare to the recent study by Baldez et al (2012), the four most common HPV types of vulvar lesions from Brazil gynecological patients could be identified as HPV 16, 31, 33 and 18. Almost of single type infection was HPV 16, whereas HPV 18 could be detected as co-infection with the other high-risk types.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Our results however demonstrate that the distribution of single HPV 16 and 18 infections in cervical lesions collected from Southern Pakistan does not follow this pattern; infection with HPV18 alone is as common as infection with HPV16 alone. Furthermore, the worldwide incidence of HPV16 and 18 co-infection is significantly lower than that detected in our samples [25,27,30,31]. While we acknowledge that the impact of our results would be enhanced by an increase in sample size and secondary validation of co-infection, such as Southern blot, at present neither of these options is available in the local setting.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 57%