Human papillomavirus genotyping predicts residual/recurrent disease after local treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia better than viral DNA testing
Abstract
Aim
Type‐specific persistent infection (TSPI) of human papillomavirus (HPV) is reportedly associated with a high risk of residual/recurrent disease after local treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). This study aimed to evaluate whether HPV genotyping is more accurate in detecting residual/recurrent disease than HPV DNA testing and identify which HPV genotype can predict a high risk of residual/recurrent disease.
Methods
We retrospectively reviewed patient outcomes and results of HPV DNA testing and genotyping at 6–12 months after local treatment for CIN2/3 for 439 women. We investigated residual/recurrent disease occurrence according to the TSPI and new infections. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively) of the two testing methods for predicting residual/recurrent diseases were also evaluated.
Results
Eighty‐five (19.4%) patients were positive for HPV DNA testing after treatment, of which 74 (87.1%) had TSPI. Residual/recurrent disease was identified in 34 (7.7%) patients, of which 30 were positive for HPV DNA testing and had TSPI of HPV16, 18, 31, 33, 52, and 58 (six HPV genotypes). The sensitivity and NPV of HPV DNA testing and TSPI were equal at 88.2% and 98.9%, respectively. The specificity and PPV of TSPI were higher than those of HPV DNA testing (89.1% vs. 86.4%, 40.5% vs. 35.2%, respectively). Furthermore, the TSPI of the six HPV genotypes further improved specificity (90.6%) and PPV (44.1%) with the same sensitivity and NPV.
Conclusion
HPV genotyping is more useful than HPV DNA testing for determining TSPI, especially of the six HPV genotypes.