You searched for:"Terezinha Tenório da Silva"
We found (3) results for your search.Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2016;38(3):154-159
To correlate the expression of high-risk HPV E6 mRNA with pap smear, colposcopy, and biopsy results in women with high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL).
A cross-sectional study was performed on women referred for primary care services after cytological diagnosis of HSIL. We evaluated the expression of E6/E7 mRNA of HPV types 16,18,31,33, and 45 and correlated the results with those of Pap smear, colposcopy, and biopsy. For amplification/detection of mRNA E6 / E7 we used NucliSENSEasyQ kit to detect HPV mRNA by polymerase chain reaction with primers/ probes for HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, and 45.
Out of 128 valid tests, the results of 30 (23.4%) tests were negative and 98 (70%) tests were positive. Only one type of HPV was detected in 87.7% of the E6/E7 mRNA positive cases. HPV16 was detected in 61.2% of the cases, followed by HPV33 (26.5%), HPV31 (17.3%), HPV18 (10%), and HPV45 (4.08%). Pap smear tests revealed that the E6/E7 test was positive in 107 (83.8%) women with atypical squamous cells - high grade (ASC-H), HSIL, or higher. The E6/E7 test was positive in 69 (57.5%) specimens presenting negative cytology results. When analyzing the association with colposcopy results, the frequency of positive E6/E7 results increased with the severity of the injury, ranging from 57.1% in women without colposcopy-detected injury to 86.5% in those with higher levels of colposcopy findings. Of the 111 women who underwent biopsy and E6/E7 testing, the E6/E7 test was positive in 84.7% of the women who presented with lesions of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or higher. Finally, 41.2% of women with a negative biopsy presented a positive E6/E7 test.
E6/E7mRNA expression was higher in women with HSIL and CIN grade 2 or higher.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2006;28(5):285-291
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032006000500004
PURPOSE: to identify risk factors for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and human papillomavirus (HPV) types among women with CIN, and to compare with HPV types among patients with normal cervix. METHODS: a total of 228 patients were studied, of whom 132 with CIN (cases) and 96 with normal cervix (controls). In the two groups consisting of women selected among outpatients attended in the same hospital, living near the place of the research, mean ages were similar (34.0±8.3 years) and there was a predominance of married women. Possible risk factors for CIN were investigated with the application of a questionnaire surveying age, marital status, level of schooling, age at first coitus, number of pregnancies, number of sexual partners, method of used contraception, reference of previously sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and smoking habits, with a comparison between the studied groups. Samples were collected for oncologic colpocytology and HPV search through polymerase chain reaction (PCR), using MY09/MY11 primers; then colposcopic and histopathological examinations were performed. For statistical analysis of the association between risk factors and CIN, odds ratio with 95% confidence interval and chi2 and Fisher tests were used at a significance level of 0.05. The logistic regression method with the significance expressed by the p value with maximum likelihood was also applied. RESULTS: the following variables remained in the logistic regression model: HPV infection of high oncogenic risk (OR=12.32; CI 95%: 3.79-40.08), reference of previous STDs (OR=8.23; CI 95%: 2.82-24.04), early age at first coitus (OR=4.00; CI 95%: 1.70-9.39) and smoking habit (OR=3.94; CI 95%: 1.73-8.98). PCR was positive in 48.5 and 14.6% in the case and control groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: the main risk factor for CIN was oncogenic HPV infection, with types 16, 18, 33, 35, 51, 52, 58, and 83. Among patients with a high-degree lesion, there was a predominance of HPV-16 or type 16 variant. In patients with normal cervix oncogenic, HPV types 51, 58, and 51 variant were also identified.
Summary
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2005;27(7):435-436