OBJECTIVES: To identify the specific human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes from HPV-other type on an HPV DNA chip test by sequencing. METHODS: Among 13,600 women undergoing a routine gynecology examination including Pap smear and/or HPV test by DNA chip test in the healthcare system at Gangnam Center from July 2012 to February 2013, we prospectively collected and performed sequencing for a total of 351 consecutive cervicovaginal samples consisting of 180 samples that tested positive for HPV-other type and 171 samples that tested positive for either high-risk HPV or low-risk HPV. RESULTS: Of a total of 351 samples, individual HPV genotypes were successfully sequenced in 215 cases: 119 HPV-other type, 82 HPV-high-risk, and 14 HPV-low-risk. Based on the sequencing for 119 HPV-other type samples, 91.6% were detected as HPV types that were not included on the DNA chip; however, 7.6% (9/119) were proven to be high-risk HPV types: HPV 18 (n=4), HPV 33 (n=3), HPV 35 (n=1), and HPV 59 (n=1). For correlation analysis of all high-risk and HPV 16/18, the correlation rate was 76.2% and 86.6% with kappa-value of 0.38 and 0.69, respectively. CONCLUSION: HPV-other type on DNA chip test may still have possibility of high-risk HPV, i.e., HPV 18 and thus the significance of HPV-other type in detecting cervical disease remains to be investigated.
Delivery of Health Care ; DNA* ; Female ; Genotype ; Gynecology ; Human papillomavirus 18 ; Humans ; Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis* ; Papanicolaou Test ; Papillomaviridae ; Prospective Studies ; Sequence Analysis, DNA

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the type-specific high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence and distribution according to cervical cytology and age in healthy Korean women. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted with 7,014 consecutive subjects undergoing both liquid-based cervical cytology and HPV genotyping test by DNA chip for cervical cancer screening. The type-specific prevalence and distribution of individual high-risk HPV types were assessed according to cervical cytology and age groups (<30, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, and > or =60 years old). RESULTS: In total, the most common HPV genotype was HPV58 (23.9% of all high-risk HPV-positive subjects), followed by HPV16 (21.8%), HPV52 (16.6%), and HPV18 (11.7%). Regarding cervical cytology and age groups, the proportion of HPV56 strongly increased with the increasing severity of cervical cytology (P for trend=0.041). An age-specific decline in the overall high-risk HPV prevalence was reaffirmed, and the proportion of HPV52 declined markedly with age (P for trend=0.014). CONCLUSION: The type-specific prevalence of high-risk HPV types significantly varies according to cervical cytology and age. It may imply that these types have different to develop into precancerous lesions in normal cervix.
Cervix Uteri ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Female ; Genotype ; Humans ; Mass Screening ; Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis ; Prevalence ; Retrospective Studies ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms

OBJECTIVE: To identify the power of tumor markers for predicting ovarian cancer according to menopausal status. METHODS: The medical records of 876 women with ovarian cysts were retrospectively reviewed. Cancer antigen 125 (CA 125), human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) were analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity, and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses of these tumor markers were evaluated. RESULTS: The sensitivity of ROMA was 66.7% and the specificity was 86.8% to detect ovarian malignancy. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to menopausal status: premenopause (n=532, 60.7%) and postmenopause (n=344, 39.3%). For diagnostic accuracy, ROMA was lower than HE4 in premenopausal women (82.7% vs. 91.4%) and lower than CA 125 in postmenopausal women (86.9% vs. 88.7%). The ROC curve analysis revealed that the power of ROMA was not significantly better than that of HE4 in premenopausal women (area under the curve [AUC], 0.731 vs. 0.732, p=0.832), and it was also not significantly better than that of CA 125 in postmenopausal women (AUC, 0.871 vs. 0.888, p=0.440). CONCLUSION: The discrimination power of tumor markers for ovarian cancer was different according to menopausal status. In predicting ovarian malignancy, ROMA was neither superior to HE4 in premenopausal women nor superior to CA 125 in postmenopausal women.
Biomarkers, Tumor ; CA-125 Antigen ; Discrimination (Psychology) ; Epididymis ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Medical Records ; Menopause ; Ovarian Cysts ; Ovarian Neoplasms ; Postmenopause ; Premenopause ; Retrospective Studies ; ROC Curve ; Roma ; Sensitivity and Specificity