Natural history of human papillomavirus infections, cytologic and histologic abnormalities, and c
Published on: Mar 3, 2016
Transcripts - Natural history of human papillomavirus infections, cytologic and histologic abnormalities, and c
Natural Histor y of
Huma n Papillomavirus
I nfec tions, Cy tolo gic
a nd Histolo gic
a nd C a ncer
Cosette MarieWheeler, PhD
HPV Natural history of HPV infection
Abnormal cervical cytology Abnormal cervical histology
Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
HPV vaccination and screening
PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS OF THE HUMAN GENITAL TRACT
Papillomaviruses (PVs) form the family Papillomaviridae, a diverse taxonomic group of
DNA tumor viruses that coevolved with a variety of animal hosts over millions of
years.1 PVs have similar or colinear genomic organizations but their nucleotide
sequences can differ by greater than 50%. PV infections can be asymptomatic, cause
benign hyperplasias (eg, warts) or malignancies.
Human papillomaviruses (HPVs) are part of the family Papillomaviridae, and those
viruses infecting the human genital tract are in the genus Alphapapillomavirus.2 A phy-
logenetic tree representing the relationships between a subset of Alphapapillomavirus
is shown in Fig. 1. Over 100 HPV types have been identified to date, of which over 40
infect the genital tract. A new PV isolate can be established if the complete genome
has been cloned and the DNA sequence of the L1 open reading frame (ORF) differs
by more than 10% from the closest known PV type. Differences between 2% and
10% nucleotide sequence homology define an HPV subtype and less than 2% a var-
iant. HPVs primarily target infections of the basal cells in the stratified squamous
epithelium and metaplastic cells within squamocolumnar junctions. In the squamous
Departments of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, and Obstetrics and Gynecology, House
of Prevention Epidemiology, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, School of
Medicine, 1816 Sigma Chi Road, Building 191, Albuquerque, NM 87106, USA
E-mail address: email@example.com
Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 35 (2008) 519–536
0889-8545/08/$ – see front matter ª 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Fig.1. Phylogenetic tree representing a subset of Alphapapillomaviruses based on L1 amino
acid sequence similarities. A consistency based multiple sequence aligner, PROBCONS36 was
used to align the amino acid sequences for the complete L1 open reading frames of the HPV
genotypes displayed. HPV types assigned to species groupings alpha 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are dis-
played. NJplot,37 a tree drawing program, was used to draw the phylogenetic tree. Amino
acid sequences were derived from GENBANK as follows: A5 HPVs (HPV26 NC001583, HPV69
AB027020, HPV51 M62877, HPV82 AB027021), A7 HPVs (HPV59 X77858, HPV18 NC_001357,
HPV45 DQ080002, HPV97 DQ080080, HPV85 AF131950, HPV70 U21941, HPV39 PPHT39,
HPV68 DQ080079), A9 HPVs (HPV52 X74481, HPV67 D21208, HPV33 M12732, HPV58
D90400, HPV16 AY686581, HPV31 J04353, HPV35 M74117), A10 HPVs (HPV6 AF092932,
HPV11 M14119, HPV13 X62843, HPV74 U40822, HPV44 U31788, HPV55 U31791).
epithelium, their life cycles are linked closely to differentiation factors expressed within
various layers of infected cells, although the biology of infections in other cell types,
including glandular cells that do not have multiple stratified layers, has not been
Natural History of Human Papillomavirus 521
HPV genomes generally encode eight ORFs. The E6 and E7 ORFs encode what
have been described as the primary HPV transforming or oncoproteins.3,4 The retino-
blastoma tumor suppressor protein (pRB) and p53 are the two host proteins whose
role in the transformation process has been the focus of a number of studies. During
the infectious process, HPV E6 and E7 inactivate or interfere with a number of requisite
host regulatory functions, including those served by pRB and p53. In women who have
persistent HPV infections, over expression of HPV E6 and E7 and associated host cell
genomic instability can occur. It is unknown what triggers this outcome and the nec-
essary cofactors in the process to this day are not well understood. Early dogma pro-
posed that in some women, HPV infected cells were lethally deregulated as a result of
disruption or deletion of the HPV E2 protein during integration of HPV genomes. Inte-
grated HPV forms commonly detected in HPV-related malignancies often demon-
strated E2 ORF disruption at the viral integration insertion site. One function of E2 is
to act as a transcriptional regulator of HPV E6 and E7 expression.5
Over time, our understanding of HPV-related host cell transformation has revealed
a complexity beyond the simplistic view of requirements for HPV integration
associated with E2 loss, subsequent E6 and E7 over-expression, and a resultant
host genomic instability from which a clonal malignancy could arise. For example,
not all HPV-related malignancies have integrated viral forms detected.6 Even if HPV
integrants are detectable, most HPV-related severe abnormalities, including cancers,
harbor many HPV episomes (ie, extrachromosomal HPV genomes) with intact E2
ORFs.6,7 Model in vitro systems have now demonstrated that even low copy numbers
of HPV episomes have the ability to express E2, which can regulate E6 and E7 expres-
sion in trans on integrated HPV genomes.8 Furthermore, HPV proteins have been
found to interact with a wide spectrum of host regulatory proteins beyond p53 and
pRB.3,4 Ultimately, many complex HPV-induced changes within infected host cells, in-
cluding genetic and epigenetic alterations (eg, methylation) can, when infection per-
sists, result in overall genetic instability and clonal malignancy. It is likely that viral
integration of oncogenic HPV genomes in cervical lesions is a consequence rather
than the cause of chromosomal instability induced by deregulated HPV E6-E7 onco-
gene expression. Data support differences in the induction of chromosomal instability
by various high-risk carcinogenic HPV types, which is reflected by their integration fre-
quencies in advanced lesions and the transit time for lesions to progress to invasive
GENITAL HPV INFECTION
Genital HPV infection is estimated to be the most common sexually transmitted infec-
tion; an estimated 6.2 million persons are newly infected every year in the United
States.9 Infections with multiple HPV types (coinfections) are common (approximately
50%) principally because of their shared primary route of sexual transmission. The
many different genital HPV types appear to infect, resolve, or persist, and cause cer-
vical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) including low- and high-grade CIN (RCIN 2), and in
some cases cancer, independent of each other (ie, in general infections with multiple
HPV types do not seem to affect type-specific outcomes in a positive or negative man-
ner).10 Sexual intercourse is not the only means for transmission of genital HPV, al-
though other modes are believed to be very uncommon. Neonatal transmission has
been reported, although detection of genital HPV infections in children beyond times
closely related to actual birth and delivery remains controversial. Most studies have
not detected genital HPV infections routinely in either the oral cavity or genital areas
of children.11,12 In a longitudinal study, virginal women were shown to have a 2-year
cumulative HPV infection rate of 2.4%, and among those in those engaging in nonpe-
netrative sexual contact, approximately 10% were positive for HPV.13
In Northern Europe14,15 and the United States,16,17 peak genital HPV prevalence ap-
pears generally under age 25 and decreases with increasing age. In these same re-
gions, studies of young women who have recently become sexually active have
detected a very high cumulative incidence of HPV infection (eg, about 50% in
3 years).13,18 It has thus been generally presumed that the vast majority of HPV infec-
tions are acquired in the first few years after sexual debut and that HPV prevalence
steadily declines thereafter as a result of spontaneous clearance of prevalent infec-
tions. In a few studies, a second peak of HPV infection has been observed in older
women, raising the possibility that the age distribution of HPV infection might vary
within different populations.19,20 The distribution of HPV prevalence in representative
samples of women from 15 areas in four continents has in fact revealed substantial
variation in the shape of age-specific curves of HPV prevalence.21 In surveys con-
ducted by investigators at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),
steady declines in HPV prevalence were observed with increasing age in the
highest-income countries. In contrast, a flat age curve was observed in the lowest-in-
come areas of Asia and in Nigeria, where HPV prevalence was similar across age
groups. Three areas in Latin America (Chile, Colombia, and Mexico) revealed a U-
shaped curve of age-specific prevalence (ie, a second peak of HPV infection was
observed in older women). Further research is needed to understand the role of
screening and other reasons for the differences in age-related HPV prevalence
observed in different settings.
Longitudinal studies have consistently shown that most HPV infections are no lon-
ger detectable within 1 to 2 years following initial observation.10 About 50% of HPV
infections in women with normal cytology will have resolved in less than 1 year, and
approximately 90% of women with either normal or CIN 1 diagnoses will ultimately re-
solve on their own.22,23 In fact, most HPV infections are asymptomatic and so transient
that most individuals have no idea that they are infected.
For clinical purposes, HPV infections associated with normal cervical cytology and
those associated with low-grade CIN (CIN 1) are considered essentially the same.24
Resolution or clearance of any HPV type appears to result in immunity to that type,
at least based on available evidence from ongoing prospective cohort studies. It is un-
known whether HPV infections can become dormant in basal cells and if so, whether
future downstream reactivation of so called ‘‘latent HPV’’ genomes occurs. At present
it is impossible to distinguish reactivation from newly acquired HPV infections and,
therefore, any contribution of potential HPV reactivation to disease outcomes remains
Although cumulative HPV exposure is difficult to quantify because nearly all HPV in-
fections are transient and HPV serology is inaccurate (ie, only about 60% of women
with known HPV infections ever develop detectable HPV-specific antibodies), a sub-
stantial proportion of HPV DNA-negative, seronegative women have been exposed.
A majority of women in the world are probably infected with at least one if not several
types of HPV during their sexual lifetime; however, only few will progress to high-grade
disease, including cancer.
In the subset of women who are diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer, the cause
is virtually all attributable to persistent cervical infection with 1 of approximately 15
carcinogenic HPV types.25 HPVs are a necessary cause of both squamous cell carci-
noma and adenocarcinoma, although HPV genotype distributions and the role of non-
viral cofactors seem to differ by histologic type.26–28 Rapidly invasive cancers are
rarely diagnosed in young women, as the transit time from initial HPV infection to
Natural History of Human Papillomavirus 523
invasion is believed to be on average greater than two decades. Nevertheless, preven-
tion strategies in a number of countries are often formulated to prevent these cases in
young women. Well-organized cervical cancer screening programs in many devel-
oped countries have reduced the incidence of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix
over the past few decades, although adenocarcinoma of the cervix has been increas-
ing in some countries29,30 for reasons that have not been fully defined.
HPV type 16 is the most common carcinogenic HPV type and is detected in approx-
imately 50% of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) and invasive cervi-
cal cancers worldwide.31–33 The risk of a severe CIN 3 and cancer outcome is
remarkably greater for HPV type 16 infections when compared with risk estimates
for all other carcinogenic HPV types.34 HPV types 16 and 18 are detected in about
50% and 10% to 20% of invasive cervical cancers,31–33 respectively. HPV 18 is found
in a greater proportion of adenocarcinomas than squamous-cell cervical carcino-
mas.28 Other carcinogenic HPV types contributing to the global burden of cervical
cancer include types 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66, 68, 73, and 82. Each
of these HPV types contributes 5% or less to the cumulative incidence of HPV-
associated cervical cancers worldwide. A number of additional HPV types infecting
the genital tract are considered low-risk or noncarcinogenic. These include HPV types
6 and 11, which are responsible for over 90% of anogenital warts. Because noncarci-
nogenic HPV types cause cytologic and histologic abnormalities, detecting infections
with carcinogenic HPV types is more important than detecting the presence or
absence of equivocal or low-grade cytologic or histologic abnormalities.
For the past few decades, cervical cancer prevention has primarily been based on
screening by cytology, evaluation of the cervix with colposcopy, and biopsy of poten-
tially abnormal tissues. Biopsy-proven high-grade abnormalities are treated by exci-
sion or ablation of the cervical transformation zone. Despite enormous expenditures
on cervical cancer screening and over 60 million Papanicolaou (Pap) tests performed
each year, the American Cancer Society estimates that in 2008, approximately 11,070
cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States.35
A brief overview of the major abnormal cytology and histology diagnostic categories
and their relationship to HPV infections is provided below. Clinical management of var-
ious diagnostic categories is not detailed here but guidelines recommending clinical
management strategies have been published elsewhere.24
HPV AND ABNORMAL CYTOLOGY
Carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic HPV types result in abnormal cervical cytology.
A cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells (ASC) is the most common of all
cytologic categories, but ASC is also the least reproducible among pathologists. Atyp-
ical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) and atypical squamous
cells cannot exclude HSIL (ASC-H) represent the two subcategories of ASC. The pro-
portion of high-risk HPV-positive women reported among these two categories ranges
from 40% to 51% for ASC-US, and from 74% to 88% for ASC-H.36–41 Similarly, the
prevalence of CIN 2 and 3 is higher among women with ASC-H than among women
with ASC-US.42 ASC-H is typically considered equivocal HSIL and a productive
HPV infection. A 2004 meta-analysis reported that the pooled estimate of the sensitiv-
ity of HPV testing for detecting women with CIN 2 and 3 in women with atypical or
equivocal cytology is considerably higher than that of a single repeat cytology.43
The overall prevalence of invasive cervical cancer is low among women with ASC.44
Low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL) have previously been described
using a number of terms, including HPV effects, koilocytosis, parakeratosis, mild
dysplasia, and CIN 1. Cytologic LSIL are, however, not equivalent to histologic CIN 1.
LSIL is highly correlated with HPV infection. For example, in the United States National
Cancer Institute’s (NCI) ASCUS/LSIL Triage Study (ALTS) trial, when testing for 38
possible HPV types, HPV DNA positivity among women with LSIL diagnoses was
85%.45 The risk of CIN 2 or 3 and the clinical management of women with LSIL is
the same for women with ASC-US who are positive for carcinogenic HPV DNA.46
The prevalence of CIN 2 and 3 or cancer among women with LSIL has been reported
to be between 12% and 17%.47,48 In contrast to other cytology diagnoses, which have
generally remained constant, the prevalence of LSIL diagnoses in the United States
has nearly doubled over the past decade.49 The increase has been largely attributed
to an increase in liquid-based cytology.
HSIL have previously been described as moderate dysplasia, severe dysplasia, car-
cinoma in situ, CIN 2, and CIN 3. Cytologic HSIL are not equivalent to histologic CIN 2
or 3. An HSIL cytology result is highly correlated (85%) with HPV infection33 and in-
dicates a high risk for significant cervical disease, with 53% to 66% of women having
a CIN 2 or 3 or cancer diagnosis following biopsy.48,50,51 An estimated 2% of women
with HSIL have invasive cancer.52
Cytologic abnormalities of glandular cells that are less severe than adenocarcinoma
are divided into three categories: atypical glandular cells (AGC; endocervical, endo-
metrial, or ‘‘glandular cells’’ not otherwise specified); AGC, either endocervical or
‘‘glandular cells’’ favor neoplasia (AGC favor neoplasia); and endocervical adenocar-
cinoma in situ (AIS). AGC results are overall uncommon. By comparison to ASC, LSIL,
and HSIL, which are common in younger women, AGC is more common in women
over age 40.53 AGC is frequently caused by benign conditions, such as reactive
changes, but a fair number of women with AGC have significant intraepithelial neopla-
sia (CIN 2 or 3, AIS, or cancer), and 3% to 17% have invasive cancer.54–57
It is worth commenting on the psychosocial morbidity of the previously described
abnormal cytology diagnoses. Research has shown that distress and anxiety are re-
ported by a majority of women (59%) after having even a low-grade abnormal Pap
test.58 Women also report negative impacts on their sexuality, fear about developing
cancer, and wondering if the abnormalities could interfere with their ability to bear chil-
dren.59–61 The significant psychosocial morbidity and health care expenditures asso-
ciated with abnormal Pap tests requires improved identification of those HPV
infections that are destined to persist and progress, as very few women with abnormal
cytology will ever develop invasive cervical cancer.
HPV-RELATED HISTOLOGY OUTCOMES
Among women of reproductive age, abnormal histology or CIN is a relatively common
diagnosis. It has been estimated that in the United States, greater than 1 million
women are diagnosed each year with CIN 1 and that approximately 500,000 are diag-
nosed with high-grade cervical cancer precursor lesions that include both CIN 2 and
3.49 The histologic diagnosis of CIN represents the standard for determining clinical
management. Fig. 2 provides a schematic diagram to show the disease continuum
of CIN development following HPV infection.
High rates of spontaneous regression, ranging from 70% to 90%, have been re-
ported for CIN 1 lesions that remain untreated, and thus progression of CIN 1 to
CIN 2 or worse is rarely observed. In the NCI ALTS trial, the risk for having a CIN 2
or 3 lesion during 2 years of follow-up after initial colposcopy was nearly identical in
women with a histologic diagnosis of CIN 1 (13%) and in women whose initial colpo-
scopy and biopsy were negative (12%).46 CIN 1 lesions are associated with high-risk
Natural History of Human Papillomavirus 525
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram to show the disease continuum of cervical neoplasia development
following HPV infection. Infection of the cervical transformation zone with genital HPV can
be cleared relatively rapidly through innate and adaptive immunity or other mechanisms
not yet defined. Established HPV infections can sometimes be recognized as cytologic or
histologic abnormalities, most often CIN 1. Most of these cellular abnormalities will be
resolved, presumably by host immunity. When carcinogenic HPV infections persist, cervical
precancers, such as CIN3, can arise from genetic instability and ultimately clonal expansion
of highly transformed cells. The events associated with and necessary for invasion of the
basement membrane remain unknown. The following factors lead to HPV persistence:
HPV type (greatest risk 5 HPV 16), increasing age, smoking, mutagens, immunosuppression,
inflammation, hormones, and genetic factors. (From Wheeler CM. Advances in primary and
secondary interventions for cervical cancer: human papillomavirus prophylactic vaccines and
testing. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2007;4(4):225; with permission.)
carcinogenic types of HPV, but the distribution of HPV types in women with normal
cytology and CIN 1 is markedly different than what is detected in CIN 2 and 3 33,62–64
and invasive cervical cancer, as shown in Table 1.
In designing cervical cancer prevention strategies, precancer or CIN 3 or worse is
a reasonable surrogate for invasive cervical cancer, as numerous studies demonstrate
essential equivalence on a molecular basis. By comparison, CIN 2 is a highly hetero-
geneous entity where the biologic importance varies greatly. Therefore, for a number
of reasons, CIN 2 has severe limitations when included with CIN 3 as a surrogate end-
point for cancer. For example, there are a number of noncarcinogenic HPV types that
can cause CIN 2 but which rarely if ever cause invasive cancer.65,66 There is even di-
rect evidence that CIN 2 lesions have an intermediate cancer risk when compared with
CIN3.67 A review of the literature found 43% of untreated CIN 2 lesions regressed in
the absence of treatment, 35% persisted, and 22% would progress to carcinoma in
situ or become invasive.68 The rates of regression, persistence, and progression for
CIN 3 were 32%, 56%, and 14%, respectively. Furthermore, CIN 2 is not a reproduc-
ible diagnosis among pathologists because of an overall lack of agreement on specific
cytomorphologic criteria. In the NCI ALTS trial, only 43% of CIN 2 diagnosed among
community center pathologists was accepted as CIN 2 by the expert consensus
panel.69 Many continue to debate whether a CIN 2 diagnosis should be considered
a low-grade or high-grade lesion, as there is good evidence demonstrating CIN 2 often
represents acute HPV infection with worrisome microscopic features that will
HPV genotype distribution reported in various large studies
New Mexico USAa IARC Poolb LSILc HSILd ICCd
HPV Genotype % of All HPV Positives
16 19.2 19.7 26.6 55.2 45.3
18 5.9 7.2 8.6 6.9 6.9
45 6.0 5.6 4.9 2.3 2.3
31 7.7 7.5 11.7 3.8 8.6
33 2.5 5.8 7.6 3.7 7.3
52 7.6 5.3 8.8 2.9 5.1
58 6.5 7.6 8.5 2.8 7.0
35 2.4 5.9 5.9 1.5 3.8
59 5.4 2.9 6.0 1.1 0.8
51 7.5 4.0 10.9 1.0 3.6
56 6.3 7.1 9.7 1.0 2.9
39 8.5 4.3 7.8 0.9 2.0
68 3.0 2.1 NR 0.5 1.1
66 2.4 4.1 8.5 0.4 1.9
53 13.3 1.2 10.1 NR NR
70 2.3 NR NR 0.1 1.3
73 2.6 2.3 NR 0.4 1.8
82d 2.0 0.8 NR 0.1 1.2
6 5.2 1.4 NR 0.5 2.2
11 1.3 1.4 NR 0.1 1.3
Total sample, n 3,863 15,613 8,308 7,094 14,595
Any HPV positive 1,515 1,429 5,910
(% of total sample) (39.2) (9.2) (71.1) (84.9) (87)
Abbreviation: ND, not reported.
Clinic-based study enrolled women ages 18 to 40 with no past history of cytologic abnormality
in past year, no history of ever having high-grade cervical diagnosis, cervical treatment or hyster-
ectomy. Data from Peyton CL, Gravitt PE, Hunt WC, et al. Determinants of genital human papillo-
mavirus detection in a US population. J Infect Dis. 2001;183(11):1554–64. Epub 2001 May 9.
IARC population-based survey in 11 countries enrolling an age-stratified sample of women
ages 15 to 74 without cytologic abnormalities. Data from Clifford GM, Gallus S, Herrero R, et al.
Worldwide distribution of human papillomavirus types in cytologically normal women in the Inter-
national Agency for Research on Cancer HPV prevalence surveys: a pooled analysis. Lancet.
LSIL cases (n 5 8,308) from 55 published studies were included in a meta-analysis. Regional dis-
tribution of included cases: Europe 46.5%, North America 32.9%, South/Central America 14.8%,
Africa 3.0%, and Asia 2.9%. Data from Clifford GM, Rana RK, Franceschi S, et al. Human papilloma-
virus genotype distribution in low-grade cervical lesions: comparison by geographic region and
with cervical cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14(5):1157–64.
Includes HPV IS39, now designated as a variant of HPV82.
inevitably regress. None-the-less, a significant proportion of CIN 2 lesions associated
with high-risk carcinogenic HPV types harbor incipient precancers, with a high risk of
invasive outcome. As such, in the United States, CIN 2 is combined with CIN 3 and
represents the clinical threshold requiring ablative or excisional therapy.70 Although
treatment of CIN 2 may currently be appropriate to insure a high degree of safety,
given the high prevalence of CIN 2 in reproductive-aged women, the potential for neg-
ative-reproductive outcomes associated with loop electrosurgical excision
Natural History of Human Papillomavirus 527
procedures must be considered. Loop electrosurgical excision has been reported to
double the risk for subsequent preterm delivery, premature rupture of membranes,
and of having a low birth-weight infant.71 Identification of biomarkers to predict which
CIN cases represent true precancers requiring treatment remains an important area
for further discovery work.
The immediate precursors of invasive cervical cancer are squamous cell carcinoma
in situ (CIS) and adenocarcinoma in situ. AIS is much less commonly observed than are
CIN 2 and 3 and CIS. The earliest form of invasive cancer is histologically recognized
as microinvasive carcinoma: cancers that have invaded no more than 5-mm deep and
7-mm wide into the underlying cervical stroma. Early invasive cancers appear as a tiny
bud of invasive cells that have penetrated through the basement membrane and
pushed into the underlying stroma. Histologically, approximately 90% to 95% of inva-
sive cervical cancers arising from the uterine cervix in developing countries are squa-
mous cell cancers, and about 5% are adenocarcinomas. Adenocarcinoma arises in
the endocervical canal from the glandular epithelium. Virtually all of squamous- and
adenocarcinomas of the uterine cervix are caused by high-risk carcinogenic HPV ge-
notypes. The most widely used staging system for invasive cervical cancer is based on
tumor size and the extent of disease spread into the vagina, parametrium, urinary blad-
der, rectum, and distant organs. Clinical stage of disease at presentation is the single
most important predictor of survival from invasive cervical cancer.
UNDERSTANDING COFACTORS OF HPV PERSISTENCE AND PROGRESSION TO HIGH-GRADE
Several factors are implicated in enhancing HPV persistence and HPV-related disease
progression to high-grade cervical abnormalities and cancer; however, it is difficult to
disentangle persistence from HPV-related disease progression. Persistence can be
defined as the detection of the same HPV genotype two or more times with a specific
time interval between samples. There is currently no agreed upon definition of an ap-
propriate interval (eg, 6, 12, 18 months) to define ‘‘meaningful’’ persistence. Data dem-
onstrate that the longer an HPV infection has persisted, the more likely it is to remain
persistent. Additionally, some data indicate that HPV 16 persists longer than other
Studies have demonstrated that older women with HPV infections are more likely to
persist longer than infections in younger women.73,74 Because these studies were
cross-sectional, it is probable that the older women already had these persistent
HPV infections for some time, and thus it should not be presumed that new infections
in older women by nature have an increased risk of longer persistence. Long-term per-
sistence (5 years) is not a strict correlate of carcinogenicity. Noncarcinogenic HPV
types can also persist for long periods.72
Studies assessing the risk of CIN 3 or cervical cancer among HPV-positive women
have been consistent in finding smoking as a cofactor, but this association is less clear
for persistence of HPV.75,76 In women infected with high-risk carcinogenic HPV geno-
types, long-term oral contraceptive use can significantly increase the risk of develop-
ing high-grade cervical lesions including cancer.77 Some sexually transmitted
infections have been suggested as cofactors for HPV outcomes. The majority of stud-
ies examining Chlamydia trachomatis in HPV-positive women have demonstrated an
association with high-grade cervical lesions and invasive cancer.78 Chlamydia tracho-
matis has also been associated with increased HPV persistence.79,80 Studies of other
sexually transmitted infections as cofactors for HPV-related outcomes, including her-
pes simplex virus and Trichomonas vaginalis, have reported inconsistent results.78
Nutrients, intake of fruits and vegetables, and alcohol intake have also been implicated
inconsistently. Genetic and immunologic host factors, such as HLA class I and II
genes81 and viral factors, such as HPV variants, viral load, and viral integration, appear
important in determining risks for HPV-related cervical disease outcomes, although
a great deal of work is needed to further clarify specific roles of these factors.
Natural immunity has been implicated as an important modifier of HPV infection and
HPV-related disease; however, because HPVs have evolved to evade host immune
recognition, specific immune responses have been difficult to characterize. Extremely
low-level responses are often not measurable by existing immunologic methods. Cell-
mediated immune responses are often barely above background measures, and de-
tectable HPV-specific antibodies are only detectable in about 60% of infected women,
although this varies somewhat among different HPV types studied.82 Women with
transient HPV infections are less likely to develop detectable HPV-specific antibodies
or cell-mediated responses than women with persistent HPV infections.83 Thus, innate
immunity may have an important role in the elimination of many HPV infections. HPV-
specific antibody is associated with prior HPV exposure but does not appear to pro-
vide protection against HPV persistence or disease.84 In longitudinal cohort studies,
once clearance of any HPV type is observed, it is very uncommon to detect that spe-
cific HPV type again,85 giving support to the notion that some aspect of natural
immune protection is generated.
INTEGRATING PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CERVICAL CANCER PREVENTION STRATEGIES
Given the discovery of carcinogenic HPVs as a single primary cause of invasive cer-
vical cancer, numerous opportunities for developing targeted primary and secondary
interventions have been realized. In those countries where high coverage has already
been achieved for cervical screening, improving the sensitivity of the screening test
has become a primary goal. In a number of studies, HPV DNA testing alone has
emerged over the past decade as a more sensitive primary screening test in women
who are at least 30 years of age.85 The IARC has stated there is sufficient evidence
indicating that the efficacy of HPV testing using a validated system as the primary
screening modality can be expected to be at least as good as that of conventional cy-
tology.65 In comparison to cytology, HPV testing is objective and amenable to automa-
tion and it can be performed in a more reproducible and accurate manner. As HPV
testing costs are reduced, and if lower cost HPV tests are made available to develop-
ing countries, a variety of HPV-based cervical screening programs can be envisioned
throughout the world. It is further possible that HPV tests capable of distinguishing
specific, individual HPV genotypes will find utility in classifying women at greatest
risk of disease outcome: those with persistent HPV infections. Some of the most com-
mon HPV types found in cancer, including HPV 16, 18, 31, 33 and 45, are currently be-
ing considered in longitudinal studies that will assess the clinical utility of algorithms
employing multiple HPV genotype-specific measurements.
In addition to improvements expected in secondary cervical cancer prevention
through HPV testing, two manufacturers have developed prophylactic HPV vaccines
that have demonstrated high efficacy in populations that are naıve to the HPV vaccine
types.86–88 The vaccines are composed of noninfectious, recombinant HPVviral-like
particles (VLPs) that target reductions in the two HPV types, HPV 16 and 18. HPV
16 and 18 are responsible for approximately 70% of invasive cervical cancer world-
wide. One of the vaccines86,87 also includes VLP immunogens for HPV types 6 and
11, which cause the majority of anogenital warts. However, for cervical cancer
incidence to be reduced, women will require both screening and vaccination, as
Natural History of Human Papillomavirus 529
first-generation HPV vaccines do not provide protection against a number of carcino-
genic HPVs. Thus, cervical cancer screening programs must continue, and the relative
roles of HPV vaccination in young women and HPV testing in older women (alone or in
conjunction with cytology) will be determined over the next decades. Presently, no
change in current screening is planned in vaccinated or unvaccinated women.89
As HPV vaccines are implemented, there are certain reductions in screening diag-
noses that can be anticipated, primarily because of reductions in circulating HPV16.
A small impact on ASC-US and LSIL diagnoses is expected, and the number of
HSIL and cancer diagnoses will diminish to a greater extent. However, HSIL and can-
cer diagnoses represent a very small proportion of the overall abnormalities encoun-
tered. The positive-predictive value of an abnormal cytology for predicting CIN 3 and
cancer will therefore decrease. The same decrease in the positive-predictive value will
apply to current high-risk carcinogenic HPV assays, as the primary value of this testing
lies in the detection of HPV 16 and 18. Vaccination will, in effect, eliminate some of the
intrinsic value of cervical cytology programs.
The addition of HPV vaccination will therefore require adjustments in the associated
cervical cancer screening programs, particularly because HPV vaccines are costly
and will add billions of dollars to the estimated $5 to $6 billion already spent each
year in the United States on current cervical screening programs. For example, if
HPV vaccines achieve high coverage, then removal of HPV 16 and 18 from the circu-
lating HPV pool will most likely justify increasing the age of first cervical screening.
Other carcinogenic HPV types are less common in precancer and cancers detected
in younger women, and cost-effectiveness analyses support increasing the age of first
cervical screening to approximately 25 years.90 Over time, as more data become avail-
able, extension of screening intervals in vaccinated populations may also be war-
ranted. This would be particularly important if HPV testing is routinely used in
screening. The cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination will depend on the duration of
vaccine immunity and will be optimized by achieving high coverage in presexually ac-
tive adolescent girls, targeting initial catch-up efforts to women up to 18 or 21 years of
age and revising screening policies.91
To enable the appropriate and timely integration of HPV vaccination and screening,
it will be important to conduct surveillance in populations for which any coordinated
modifications are under consideration. This may be particularly relevant in settings
such as the United States, where there are no national cervical screening programs
with call and recall support and where HPV vaccination may take several years to
achieve high population coverage. In the short term, population-based registries
and information systems collecting longitudinal data on cervical screening (Pap tests
and RCIN 1), treatment, and vaccination will be needed to inform appropriate deci-
sion-making and to determine the population-based effectiveness or lack thereof
for these interventions.92
There are over 40 common genital HPV types that are primarily sexually transmitted.
The vast number of women will be infected with one or more HPV types in their sexual
lifetime. Persistent infection with HPV types can cause abnormal cytology (Pap tests)
including diagnoses of ASC, AGC, LSIL, and HSIL, as well as abnormal histology iden-
tified following biopsy diagnosis as CIN 1 to 3, AIS, and cancer. Only a small subset of
women infected with high-risk carcinogenic HPV will develop invasive cervical cancer.
Although carcinogenic HPV is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer, a number
of cofactors have been associated with HPV persistence and HPV-related disease
progression, including: (1) viral factors such as genotype (eg, HPV 16) and variant; (2)
tobacco and long-term oral contraceptive use; and (3) genetic and immunologic host
factors including innate immunity. About 15 carcinogenic HPV types are responsible
for the global burden of invasive cervical cancer with HPV type 16 demonstrating
the greatest risk. Given the identification of carcinogenic HPV as a necessary cause
of cervical cancer, primary and secondary interventions have been highly successful.
HPV testing has been used in cervical screening and may one day be used as a primary
cervical screening test at least in women greater than or equal to 30 years. Prophylac-
tic HPV vaccines based on VLPs have demonstrated high efficacy in sexually naıve ¨
populations. For cervical cancer incidence to be reduced, however, women will re-
quire both screening and vaccination, as first-generation HPV vaccines do not provide
protection against a number of carcinogenic HPVs. Thus, cervical cancer screening
programs must continue and the relative roles of HPV vaccination in young women
and HPV testing in older women (alone or in conjunction with cytology) will be deter-
mined over the next decades. Population-based registries and information systems
collecting longitudinal data on cervical screening (Pap tests and RCIN 1), treatment,
and HPV vaccination will be needed to inform appropriate decision-making and to de-
termine the population-based effectiveness or lack thereof for these interventions.
It is with great appreciation and gratitude that I extend my thanks to the hundreds of
clinicians and scientists who have contributed to our understanding of HPVs as nec-
essary etiologic agents of invasive cervical cancer. In addition, I would like to thank the
many members of my laboratory and clinical research group at the University of New
Mexico, who have worked with me toward this same goal over the past 20 years. Your
efforts have enabled major advances in primary and secondary cervical cancer pre-
vention. Special thanks to Cheri Peyton-Goodall, who conducted the sequence align-
ments and prepared the phylogenetic tree shown in Fig. 1.
1. Bernard HU. The clinical importance of the nomenclature, evolution and taxon-
omy of human papillomaviruses. J Clin Virol 2005;32(Suppl 1):S1–6. Review.
2. de Villiers EM, Fauquet C, Broker TR, et al. Classification of papillomaviruses.
3. Doorbar J. Molecular biology of human papillomavirus infection and cervical can-
cer. Clin Sci (Lond) 2006;110(5):525–41.
4. Munger K, Baldwin A, Edwards KM, et al. Mechanisms of human papillomavirus-
induced oncogenesis. J Virol 2004;78(21):11451–60.
5. Bouvard V, Storey A, Pim D, et al. Characterization of the human papillomavirus
E2 protein: evidence of trans-activation and trans-repression in cervical keratino-
cytes. EMBO J. 1994;13(22):5451–9.
6. Vinokurova S, Wentzensen N, Kraus I, et al. Type-dependent integration fre-
quency of human papillomavirus genomes in cervical lesions. Cancer Res
7. Arias-Pulido H, Peyton CL, Joste NE, et al. Human papillomavirus type 16 integra-
tion in cervical carcinoma in situ and in invasive cervical cancer. J Clin Microbiol
Natural History of Human Papillomavirus 531
8. Pett MR, Herdman MT, Palmer RD, et al. Selection of cervical keratinocytes con-
taining integrated HPV16 associates with episome loss and an endogenous anti-
viral response. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006;103(10):3822–7. Epub 2006 Feb 27.
9. Weinstock H, Berman S, Cates W Jr. Sexually transmitted diseases among Amer-
ican youth: incidence and prevalence estimates, 2000. Perspect Sex Reprod
10. Plummer M, Schiffman M, Castle PE, et al. A 2-year prospective study of human
papillomavirus persistence among women with a cytological diagnosis of atypical
squamous cells of undetermined significance or low-grade squamous intraepi-
thelial lesion. J Infect Dis 2007;195(11):1582–9. Epub 2007 Apr 16.
11. Smith EM, Ritchie JM, Yankowitz J, et al. Human papillomavirus prevalence and
types in newborns and parents: concordance and modes of transmission. Sex
Transm Dis 2004;31(1):57–62.
12. Smith EM, Swarnavel S, Ritchie JM, et al. Prevalence of human papillomavirus in
the oral cavity/oropharynx in a large population of children and adolescents. Pe-
diatr Infect Dis J 2007;26(9):836–40.
13. Winer RL, Lee SK, Hughes JP, et al. Genital human papillomavirus infection: inci-
dence and risk factors in a cohort of female university students. Am J Epidemiol
2003;157(3):218–26. Erratum in: Am J Epidemiol 2003;1;157(9):858.
14. Kjaer SK, van den Brule AJ, Bock JE, et al. Determinants for genital human pap-
illomavirus (HPV) infection in 1000 randomly chosen young Danish women with
normal Pap smear: are there different risk profiles for oncogenic and nononco-
genic HPV types? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1997;6(10):799–805.
15. Peto J, Gilham C, Deacon J, et al. Cervical HPV infection and neoplasia in a large
population-based prospective study: the Manchester cohort. Br J Cancer 2004;
16. Bauer HM, Ting Y, Greer CE, et al. Genital human papillomavirus infection in fe-
male university students as determined by a PCR-based method. JAMA 1991;
17. Burk RD, Kelly P, Feldman J, et al. Declining prevalence of cervicovaginal human
papillomavirus infection with age is independent of other risk factors. Sex Transm
18. Woodman CB, Collins S, Winter H, et al. Natural history of cervical human papil-
lomavirus infection in young women: a longitudinal cohort study. Lancet 2001;
19. Herrero R, Hildesheim A, Bratti C, et al. Population-based study of human papil-
lomavirus infection and cervical neoplasia in rural Costa Rica. J Natl Cancer Inst
20. Molano M, Posso H, Weiderpass E, et al. Prevalence and determinants of HPV
infection among Colombian women with normal cytology. Br J Cancer 2002;
21. Franceschi S, Herrero R, Clifford GM, et al. Variations in the age-specific curves
of human papillomavirus prevalence in women worldwide. Int J Cancer 2006;
22. Schlecht NF, Platt RW, Duarte-Franco E, et al. Human papillomavirus infection
and time to progression and regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95(17):1336–43.
23. Moscicki AB, Shiboski S, Hills NK, et al. Regression of low-grade squamous intra-
epithelial lesions in young women. Lancet 2004;364(9446):1678–83.
24. Wright TC Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, et al. 2006 American Society for Colpo-
scopy and Cervical Pathology-sponsored Consensus Conference. 2006
Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial
neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2007;11(4):223–39
Erratum in: J Low Genit Tract Dis 2008;12(1):63.
Munoz N, Castellsague X, de Gonzalez AB, et al. Chapter 1: HPV in the etiology
of human cancer. Vaccine. 2006;24(S3):S1–10.
Berrington de Gonzalez A, Sweetland S, et al. Comparison of risk factors for
squamous cell and adenocarcinomas of the cervix: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer
27. Altekruse SF, Lacey JV Jr, Brinton LA, et al. Comparison of human papillomavirus
genotypes, sexual, and reproductive risk factors of cervical adenocarcinoma and
squamous cell carcinoma: Northeastern United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol
Castellsague X, D M, de Sanjose S, et al. Worldwide human papillomavirus eti-
ology of cervical adenocarcinoma and its cofactors: implications for screening
and prevention. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98(5):303–15.
29. Sherman ME, Wang SS, Carreon J, et al. Mortality trends for cervical squamous
and adenocarcinoma in the United States. Relation to incidence and survival.
30. Bray F, Loos AH, McCarron P, et al. Trends in cervical squamous cell carcinoma
incidence in 13 European countries: changing risk and the effects of screening.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14(3):677–86.
Munoz N, Bosch FX, de Sanjose S, et al. International Agency for Research on
Cancer Multicenter Cervical Cancer Study Group. Epidemiologic classification
of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer. N Engl J Med
Bosch FX, Manos MM, Munoz N, et al. Prevalence of human papillomavirus in
cervical cancer: a worldwide perspective. International Biological Study on Cer-
vical Cancer (IBSCC) Study Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87(11):796–802.
33. Smith JS, Lindsay L, Hoots B, et al. Human papillomavirus type distribution in in-
vasive cervical cancer and high-grade cervical lesions: a meta-analysis update.
Int J Cancer 2007;121(3):621–32.
34. Castle PE, Solomon D, Schiffman M, et al. Human papillomavirus type 16 infec-
tions and 2-year absolute risk of cervical precancer in women with equivocal or
mild cytologic abnormalities. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97(14):1066–71.
35. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_
are_the_key_statistics_for_cervical_cancer_8.asp. Accessed November 5,
36. Manos MM, Kinney WK, Hurley LB, et al. Identifying women with cervical neopla-
sia: using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results.
37. ASCUS-LSIL Traige Study (ALTS) Group. Results of a randomized trial on the
management of cytology interpretations of atypical squamous cells of undeter-
mined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188(6):1383–92.
38. Lonky NM, Felix JC, Naidu YM, et al. Triage of atypical squamous cells of unde-
termined significance with hybrid capture II: colposcopy and histologic human
papillomavirus correlation. Obstet Gynecol 2003;101(3):481–9.
39. Duncan LD, Jacob SV. Atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude a high-grade
squamous intraepithelial lesion: the practice experience of a hospital-based ref-
erence laboratory with this new Bethesda system diagnostic category. Diagn
Natural History of Human Papillomavirus 533
40. Evans MF, Adamson CS, Papillo JL, et al. Distribution of human papillomavirus
types in ThinPrep Papanicolaou tests classified according to the Bethesda
2001 terminology and correlations with patient age and biopsy outcomes. Cancer
41. Sherman ME, Solomon D, Schiffman M. ASCUS LSIL Triage Study Group.
Qualification of ASCUS. A comparison of equivocal LSIL and equivocal HSIL
cervical cytology in the ASCUS LSIL Triage Study. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;
42. Kulasingam SL, Kim JJ, Lawrence WF, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis based on
the atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance/low-grade squamous
intraepithelial lesion Triage Study (ALTS). J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98(2):92–100.
43. Arbyn M, Buntinx F, Van Ranst M, et al. Virologic versus cytologic triage of women
with equivocal Pap smears: a meta-analysis of the accuracy to detect high-grade
intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96(4):280–93.
44. Jones BA, Novis DA. Follow-up of abnormal gynecologic cytology: a College of
American Pathologists Q-probes study of 16132 cases from 306 laboratories.
Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124(5):665–71.
45. Castle PE, Gravitt PE, Solomon D, et al. Comparison of linear array and line blot
assay for detection of human papillomavirus and diagnosis of cervical precancer
and cancer in the atypical squamous cell of undetermined significance and low-
grade squamous intraepithelial lesion triage study. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46(1):
109–17. Epub 2007 Nov 7.
46. Cox JT, Schiffman M, Solomon D, et al. Triage Study (ALTS) Group. Prospective
follow-up suggests similar risk of subsequent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
grade 2 or 3 among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or neg-
ative colposcopy and directed biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188(6):
47. ASCUS-LSIL Traige Study (ALTS) Group. A randomized trial on the management
of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology interpretations. Am J Ob-
stet Gynecol 2003;188(6):1393–400.
48. Alvarez RD, Wright TC. Optical Detection Group. Effective cervical neoplasia de-
tection with a novel optical detection system: a randomized trial. Gynecol Oncol
2007;104(2):281–9. Epub 2006 Dec 14.
49. Davey DD, Neal MH, Wilbur DC, et al. Bethesda 2001 implementation and report-
ing rates: 2003 practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists
Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab
50. Dunn TS, Burke M, Shwayder J. A ‘‘see and treat’’ management for high-grade
squamous intraepithelial lesion pap smears. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2003;7(2):
51. Massad LS, Collins YC, Meyer PM. Biopsy correlates of abnormal cervical cytol-
ogy classified using the Bethesda system. Gynecol Oncol 2001;82(3):516–22.
52. Jones BA, Davey DD. Quality management in gynecologic cytology using interla-
boratory comparison. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124(5):672–81.
53. Insinga RP, Glass AG, Rush BB. Diagnoses and outcomes in cervical cancer
screening: a population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191(1):105–13.
54. Sharpless KE, Schnatz PF, Mandavilli S, et al. Dysplasia associated with atypical
glandular cells on cervical cytology. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105(3):494–500. Erra-
tum in: Obstet Gynecol 2005;105(6):1495.
55. DeSimone CP, Day ME, Tovar MM, et al. Rate of pathology from atypical glandular
cell Pap tests classified by the Bethesda 2001 nomenclature. Obstet Gynecol
56. Tam KF, Cheung AN, Liu KL, et al. A retrospective review on atypical glandular
cells of undetermined significance (AGUS) using the Bethesda 2001 classifica-
tion. Gynecol Oncol 2003;91(3):603–7.
57. Derchain SF, Rabelo-Santos SH, Sarian LO, et al. Human papillomavirus DNA de-
tection and histological findings in women referred for atypical glandular cells or
adenocarcinoma in situ in their Pap smears. Gynecol Oncol 2004;95(3):618–23.
58. Kahn JA, Slap GB, Bernstein DI, et al. Psychological, behavioral, and interper-
sonal impact of human papillomavirus and Pap test results. J Womens Health
59. Idestrom M, Milsom I, Andersson-Ellstrom A. Women’s experience of coping with
a positive Pap smear: A register-based study of women with two consecutive Pap
smears reported as CIN 1. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003;82(8):756–61.
60. Lagro-Janssen T, Schijf C. What do women think about abnormal smear test results?
A qualitative interview study. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2005;26(2):141–5.
61. Shinn E, Basen-Engquist K, Le T, et al. Distress after an abnormal Pap smear re-
sult: scale development and psychometric validation. Prev Med 2004;39(2):
62. Peyton CL, Gravitt PE, Hunt WC, et al. Determinants of genital human papilloma-
virus detection in a US population. J Infect Dis 2001;183(11):1554–64. Epub 2001
63. Clifford GM, Rana RK, Franceschi S, et al. Human papillomavirus genotype dis-
tribution in low-grade cervical lesions: comparison by geographic region and with
cervical cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14(5):1157–64.
64. Clifford GM, Gallus S, Herrero R, et al. Worldwide distribution of human papillo-
mavirus types in cytologically normal women in the International Agency for
Research on Cancer HPV prevalence surveys: a pooled analysis. Lancet 2005;
65. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Human
Papillomaviruses, vol. 90. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer.
66. Munoz N, Castellsague X, de Gonzalez AB, et al. Chapter 1: HPV in the etiology
of human cancer. Vaccine 2006;24(Suppl 3): S3/1–S3/10. Epub 2006 Jun 23.
67. Holowaty P, Miller AB, Rohan T, et al. Natural history of dysplasia of the uterine
cervix. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91(3):252–8.
68. Mitchell MF, Tortolero-Luna G, Wright T, et al. Cervical human papillomavirus in-
fection and intraepithelial neoplasia: a review. J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs
69. Castle PE, Stoler MH, Solomon D, et al. The relationship of community biopsy-
diagnosed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 to the quality control
pathology-reviewed diagnoses: an ALTS report. Am J Clin Pathol 2007;127(5):
70. Wright TC Jr. Chapter 3. Pathology of HPV infection at the cytologic and histologic
levels: basis for a 2-tiered morphologic classification system. Int J Gynaecol
Obstet 2006;94(suppl 1):S22–31.
71. Kyrgiou M, Koliopoulos G, Martin-Hirsch P, et al. Obstetric outcomes after conser-
vative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic
review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2006;367(9509):489–98.
72. Schiffman M, Herrero R, Desalle R, et al. The carcinogenicity of human papilloma-
virus types reflects viral evolution. Virology 2005;337(1):76–84.
Natural History of Human Papillomavirus 535
73. Kjaer SK, van den Brule AJ, Paull G, et al. Type specific persistence of high risk
human papillomavirus (HPV) as indicator of high grade cervical squamous intra-
epithelial lesions in young women: population based prospective follow up study.
74. Brown DR, Shew ML, Qadadri B, et al. A longitudinal study of genital human pap-
illomavirus infection in a cohort of closely followed adolescent women. J Infect
Dis 2005;191(2):182–92. Epub 2004 Dec 10.
75. Appleby P, Beral V, Berrington de Gonzalez A, et al. International Collaboration of
Epidemiological Studies of Cervical Cancer. Carcinoma of the cervix and tobacco
smoking: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 13,541 women with carci-
noma of the cervix and 23,017 women without carcinoma of the cervix from 23
epidemiological studies. Int J Cancer 2006;118(6):1481–95.
76. McIntyre-Seltman K, Castle PE, Guido R, et al. Smoking is a risk factor for cervical
intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 among oncogenic human papillomavirus DNA-
positive women with equivocal or mildly abnormal cytology. Cancer Epidemiol
Biomarkers Prev 2005;14(5):1165–70.
77. Smith JS, Green J, Berrington de Gonzalez A, et al. Cervical cancer and use of
hormonal contraceptives: a systematic review. Lancet 2003;361(9364):1159–67.
78. Castle PE, Giuliano AR. Chapter 4: Genital tract infections, cervical inflammation,
and antioxidant nutrients—assessing their roles as human papillomavirus cofac-
tors. J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs 2003;31:29–34.
79. Silins I, Ryd W, Strand A, et al. Chlamydia trachomatis infection and persistence
of human papillomavirus. Int J Cancer 2005;116(1):110–5.
80. Samoff E, Koumans EH, Markowitz LE, et al. Association of Chlamydia
trachomatis with persistence of high-risk types of human papillomavirus in
a cohort of female adolescents. Am J Epidemiol 2005;162(7):668–75.
81. Hildesheim A, Wang SS. Host and viral genetics and risk of cervical cancer:
a review. Virus Res 2002;89(2):229–40.
82. Carter JJ, Koutsky LA, Hughes JP, et al. Comparison of human papillomavirus
types 16, 18, and 6 capsid antibody responses following incident infection.
J Infect Dis 2000;181(6):1911–9. Epub 2000 May 31.
83. Konya J, Dillner J. Immunity to oncogenic human papillomaviruses. Adv Cancer
84. Kirnbauer R, Hubbert NL, Wheeler CM, et al. A virus-like particle enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assay detects serum antibodies in a majority of women infected
with human papillomavirus type 16. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86(7):494–9.
85. Cuzick J, Clavel C, Petry KU, et al. Overview of the European and North American
studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer. 2006;
86. Ault KA. Future II Study Group. Effect of prophylactic human papillomavirus L1
virus-like-particle vaccine on risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2,
grade 3, and adenocarcinoma in situ: a combined analysis of four randomised
clinical trials. Lancet 2007;369(9576):1861–8.
87. Garland SM, Hernandez-Avila M, Wheeler CM, et al. Females United to Unilater-
ally Reduce Endo/Ectocervical Disease (FUTURE) I Investigators. Quadrivalent
vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent anogenital diseases. N Engl
J Med 2007;356(19):1928–43.
88. Harper DM, Franco EL, Wheeler CM, et al. Sustained efficacy up to 4.5 years of
a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine against human papillomavirus types 16
and 18: follow-up from a randomised control trial. Lancet 2006;367(9518):
89. Saslow D, Castle PE, Cox JT, et al. American Cancer Society Guideline for human
papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine use to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors.
CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57(1):7–28.
90. Goldie SJ, Kohli M, Grima D, et al. Projected clinical benefits and cost-effective-
ness of a human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96(8):
91. Kim JJ, Goldie SJ. Health and economic implications of HPV vaccination in the
United States. N Engl J Med 2008;359(8):821–32.
92. Haug CJ. Human papillomavirus vaccination—reasons for caution. N Engl J Med