Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Population-based type-specific prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus infection in Estonia

  • Anneli Uusküla1Email author,
  • Mart Kals1,
  • Liina Kosenkranius2,
  • Louise-Anne McNutt3 and
  • Jack DeHovitz J4
Contributed equally
BMC Infectious Diseases201010:63

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-10-63

Received: 2 August 2009

Accepted: 11 March 2010

Published: 11 March 2010

Abstract

Background

Effective prophylactic vaccines are available against human papillomavirus (HPV) types 6, 11, 16, and 18 which are licensed for routine use among young women. Monitoring is needed to demonstrate protection against cervical cancer, to verify duration of protection, and assess replacement frequency of non-vaccine types among vaccinated cohorts.

Methods

Data from a population-based study were used to assess the type-specific prevalence of HPV in a non-vaccinated population in Estonia: 845 self-administered surveys and self-collected vaginal swabs were distributed, 346 were collected by mail and tested for HPV DNA from female participants 18-35 years of age.

Results

The overall HPV prevalence (weighted estimate to account for the sampling method) in the study population (unvaccinated women aged 18-35) was calculated to be 38% (95% CI 31-45%), with estimated prevalences of high- and low-risk HPV types 21% (95% CI 16-26%), and 10% (95% CI 7-14%), respectively. Of the high-risk HPV types, HPV 16 was detected most frequently (6.4%; 95% CI 4.0-9.8%) followed by HPV 53 (4.3%; 95% CI 2.3-7.2%) and HPV 66 (2.8%; 95% CI 1.3-5.2%).

Conclusions

We observed a high prevalence of total and high-risk type HPV in an Eastern European country. The most common high-risk HPV types detected were HPV 16, 53, and 66.

Background

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is thought to be the most common sexually transmitted infection in the world [1]. Genital HPV types are categorized according to their epidemiological association with cervical cancer. Infections with low-risk types, such as HPV types 6 and 11, can cause benign or low grade changes in cervical cells, genital warts, and recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. High-risk HPV types can cause cervical, anal, and other genital cancers. High-risk HPV types are detected in 99% of cervical cancers, and worldwide approximately 70% of cervical cancers are due to HPV types 16 and 18 [2]. Many developed countries have licensed vaccines that are highly effective against HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18 for prophylactic use among young females [3]. With widespread use of the vaccine, decreases in the prevalence of HPV types covered by the vaccine would be expected [4]. Close monitoring is needed to demonstrate protection against cervical cancer, to verify duration of protection, and assess the replacement frequency of non-vaccine types among vaccinated cohorts, and potential barriers to vaccination coverage [5, 6]. However, before a vaccination program is undertaken, baseline HPV disease burden must be assessed to gauge the efficacy of the program and the vaccine itself. To date, there are limited data on the prevalence of HPV among women living in eastern European countries. We have therefore studied the pre-vaccine prevalence of different types of HPV in Estonia.

Methods

Sample

An age-stratified (18-20, 21-25, 26-30, 31-35) random sample of 845 women aged 18-35 years was derived from the Estonian Population Registry list for Tartu city (the second largest city in the country) and county residents (from a total of 22,904 women aged 18-35). The Estonian Population Registry is an electronic database containing personal data about people residing in Estonia.

Study procedures

Data collection was conducted from September 2005 to May 2006. Each participant was mailed a package containing a specimen collection kit (a cotton swab for vaginal swabbing on a plastic handle packed in an individual reclosable plastic sleeve; Eurotubo® Collection swab, Deltalab, S.L.I., Barcelona, Spain), collection instructions and an informed consent form attached to a 35-item questionnaire requesting socio-demographic characteristics, sexual behaviour, and health care utilization data. For specimen collection, participants were instructed to wash their hands before opening the swab, to hold the swab by the end of the handle, to insert the foam swab into the vagina as if inserting a tampon, to gently turn the swab during a count of 10, and to replace the swab in the plastic sleeve, avoiding contact with the external genitalia.

Self-collected specimens (vaginal swabs) were mailed directly to the laboratory, in pre-stamped, pre-addressed envelopes. The swabs were transported in a dry state. Earlier studies have documented good performance of NAAT assays for the detection of HPV (and other genital pathogens) using self-obtained vaginal swabs shipped in a dry state to a laboratory [710]. Samples were tested in the ISO 15 189 accredited diagnostics laboratory of Quattromed HTI Laboratories Ltd. Study procedures complied with local regulations regarding mailing of biological materials. (Detailed description of the study design is provided elsewhere [11].)

Laboratory methods

Specimen processing and DNA isolation

The vaginal swabs were held for up to three days at 4°C prior to DNA extraction. Material from swab specimens was suspended in PBS and collected by centrifugation at 16,060G for 20 minutes. The supernatant was discarded and the pellet was resolved in PBS. DNA was extracted using the High Pure PCR Template Preparation Kit (Roche Molecular Biochemicals, Mannheim, Germany) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Amplification of the human β-globin gene was performed to confirm the integrity of the DNA in the samples [12].

HPV genotyping

Human papillomaviruses were detected by single-round PCR using the degenerated oligo primers MY09/11 and HMB01 as described by Gravitt et al. [13] using an Eppendorf Mastercycler (Hamburg, Germany). The PCR products were detected by ethidium bromide-stained agarose gel electrophoresis. All positive results were genotyped by restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis as described in Mejer et al. [14] The HPV genotypes were classified using the systems proposed by Dunne EF et al. and Munos et al. [4, 15] The following HPV types were classified as high-risk: 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 68, 73, 82 including probable high-risk types 26, 53, 66. Types 6, 11, 40, 42, 43, 44, 54, 61, 70, 72, 81 and 89 were classified as low-risk.

Statistical analysis

The HPV prevalence was calculated from the number of positive cases divided by the number of tested specimens. Weighted estimates of population prevalence were computed to adjust for the stratified sampling utilized in the study. Correlates of HPV prevalence were explored using the chi-square test for proportions, and multiple logistic regression analysis to assess confounding and interaction between variables. Factors with p < 0.05 in bivariate analysis were entered in a multivariate comparison. A conceptual framework approach was used for the multivariable analysis [16]. All analyses were performed with statistical software R (version 2.2.1 for Windows).

Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Review Board of the University of Tartu and the Institutional Review Board of the State University of New York at Albany. The study followed data protection legislation requirements from the Estonian Data Protection Inspectorate. Study participants received no financial incentive for participation.

Results

Study sample and socio-demographic characteristics

Study invitations reached 86% (723/845) of the targeted sample but 122 individuals could not be reached because the packet was undeliverable (e.g., moved, wrong address). These subjects were excluded from the analysis.

Women who returned the questionnaire or self-collected a vaginal sample (n = 346) were compared with those who did not (n = 377) using population registry data. There was no statistically significance difference in response proportion according to age, residency or ethnicity (data not shown) [11].

Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 35 years (mean 26.9, SD 5.5). Two out of three participants were either married (23%) or living with a sexual partner (41%).

HPV DNA Prevalence Overall and by Age

Of the 326 adequate specimens available for HPV DNA testing, 37% (95% CI 31-44%) were positive for any HPV DNA. After weighting for the source population distribution, the prevalence estimate was 38% (95% CI 31-45%) (Table 1). While the overall HPV prevalence was highest in the 21-25-year age group, greater high- risk HPV prevalence was documented for the youngest age group (aged 18-20 years).
Table 1

HPV prevalence among women in Estonia by age group (data from DNA analysis of self-collected vaginal swabs, 2006)

Age group

Number of women

18-20

N = 52

21-25

N = 95

26-30

N = 75

31-35

N = 104

Overall a

Any HPV

     

Prevalence (%)

44

46

31

29

38

95% CI

28-66

34-62

19-46

19-41

31-45

Low-risk types

     

Prevalence (%)

12

12

11

7

10

95% CI

4-25

6-21

5-21

3-14

7-14

High-risk types

     

Prevalence (%)

27

23

16

17

21

95% CI

15-45

15-35

8-28

10-27

16-26

Unknown risk types

     

Prevalence (%)

6

12

4

5

7

95% CI

1-17

6-21

1-12

2-11

4-10

a Weighted estimates of population prevalence (adjusted for the stratified sampling utilized in the study design)

Prevalence of High-Risk, Low-Risk, and Specific Types

The overall prevalence of high- and low-risk HPV types was 21% (95% CI 16-26%) and 10% (95% CI 7-14%), respectively. The prevalence of unidentified HPV types was 7% (95% CI 4-10%). The most common HPV types detected were HPV 16, 53, 66 (high-risk types), and HPV 61, 81 (low-risk types) (Table 2).
Table 2

Type-specific HPV DNA prevalence amongst women in Estonia, 2006

 

Number

Prevalence (%)

95% CI

High-risk HPV

   

HPV 16

21

6.4

4.0-9.8

HPV 53

14

4.3

2.3-7.2

HPV 66

9

2.8

1.3-5.2

HPV 31

7

2.1

0.9-4.4

HPV 51

7

2.1

0.9-4.4

HPV 58

6

1.8

0.7-4.0

HPV 33

5

1.5

0.5-3.6

HPV 18

2

0.6

0.01-2.2

HPV 45

2

0.6

0.01-2.2

HPV 39

1

0.3

0-1.7

HPV 52

1

0.3

0-1.7

HPV 82

1

0.3

0-1.7

Low-risk HPV

   

HPV 61

16

4.6

2.6-7.6

HPV 81

8

2.5

1.1-4.8

HPV 83

4

1.2

0.3-3.1

HPV 54

3

0.9

0.2-2.7

HPV 62

2

0.6

0.01-2.2

HPV 72

2

0.6

0.01-2.2

HPV 84

2

0.6

0.01-2.2

HPV 6

1

0.3

0-1.7

HPV 11

1

0.3

0-1.7

HPV 6 or 11

2

0.6

0.01-2.2

HPV 16 or 18

23

7.1

4.5-10.6

Only one HPV type

83

25.5

20.3-31.6

Multiple HPV types

15

4.6

2.6-7.6

Factors Associated With HPV DNA Detection

Detection of HPV DNA was significantly correlated in the bivariate analysis with age, and sexual behaviour (ever having sex, young age at debut, and higher number of sexual partners within the last 12 months). However, HPV DNA was detected in 6% of females who reported never having had sex. The final multivariate model demonstrated that age (> 26, OR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.9), age above 18 years at first sexual intercourse (OR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.8), and increasing numbers of sexual partners in the last 12 months (OR = 2.5, 95% CI 1.4-4.5) were independently associated with HPV DNA detection (Table 3).
Table 3

Bivariable and multivariable factors associated with HPV DNA positivity amongst women in Estonia, 2006

   

Bivariate analysis

Multivariable analysis

 

HPV +/Total

%

OR

95% CI

p-value

OR

95% CI

p-value

Characteristic

        

Socio-demographic

        

Age (years)

< = 20

23/52

44.2

1

  

1

  

21-25

44/95

46.3

1.1

0.6-2.1

 

0.8

0.4-1.7

 

26-30

23/75

30.7

0.6

0.3-1.2

 

0.4

0.2-1.0

 

30+

30/104

28.8

0.5

0.3-1.0

0.03

0.4

0.2-0.9

0.05

Ethnicity

Estonian

96/269

35.7

1

     

Other

22/52

42.3

1.3

0.7-2.4

0.4

   

Marital status

Married

23/81

28.4

1

     

Co-habiting

56/143

39.2

1.6

0.9-2.9

    

Never married

31/81

38.3

2.2

0.8-6.5

    

Other

8/17

47.1

1.6

0.8-3.0

0.3

   

Education (in years)

< = 9 years

8/19

42.1

1

     

10-12 years

32/88

36.4

0.8

0.3-2.2

    

13+ years

72/202

35.6

0.8

0.3-2.0

0.9

   

Sexual behavior

        

Ever had sexual intercourse

Yes

117/306

38.2

1

     

No

1/16

6.3

0.1

0.01-0.8

0.03

   

Age at the first intercourse

< = 18 y

95/217

43.8

1

  

1

  

> 18 y

20/85

23.5

0.4

0.2-0.7

0.001

0.4

0.2-0.8

<0.01

Number of sexual partners in last 12 months

1

72/226

31.9

1

  

1

  

2-5

39/67

58.2

3.0

1.7-5.2

< 0.001

2.5

1.4-4.5

< 0.01

> = 6

        

Self-reported history of sexually transmitted infections

Yes

33/82

40.2

1

     

No

83/233

35.6

0.8

0.5-1.4

0.5

   

Health behaviour

        

Current contraceptive use

Male condom

24/78

30.8

1

     

Other (hormonal, intrauterine device)

92/226

40.7

1.5

0.9-2.7

0.1

   

Visited gynecologist with in last 12 months

Yes

63/158

39.9

1

     

No

57/168

33.9

0.8

0.5-1.2

0.3

   

Any* cervical cancer screening with in last 12 months

Yes

55/129

42.6

1

     

No

65/197

33.0

0.7

0.4-1.0

0.08

   

* Opportunistic or systematic cervical cancer screening

Discussion

Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women worldwide. It is the sixth most frequent cancer among Estonian women of all ages, and the second most frequent cancer among young Estonian women (aged between 15 and 44 years) [17]. The availability of effective HPV vaccines has prompted a discussion about their use within public health vaccine programs. Geographical data on the HPV type distribution for women with cervical cancers as well as among women in the general population are essential for estimating the impact of cervical screening and vaccination programs [18]. Several recent studies have documented pre-vaccination HPV prevalence [4, 1923] varying according to the study design (sampling), study cohorts (clinic based, population based) and time period. These studies have typically used cervical samples obtained during a gynecological examination in the context of routine screening. In countries where cervical cancer screening is not widely implemented, such studies may not represent the general population and a non-invasive method acceptable to a representative sample of women is needed. One such option is the self-obtained vaginal sample. Several studies have documented that self-sampling has similar sensitivity to physician-obtained sampling to detect HPV DNA, suggesting that it is a viable screening option and may be a suitable alternative method for studies on HPV transmission and vaccine trials [24, 25]. Studies utilizing HPV DNA testing of asymptomatic women in the general population estimate the prevalence of HPV infection to be in the range of 2-44% [26]. Self-collected vaginal samples likely pick up a mixture of cervical and vaginal cells. Previous analyses have established that genotypes within phylogenetic species tend to be similar with respect to the anatomic site of infection [27, 28]. Studies comparing HPV detection in paired cervical and vaginal specimens have shown that the carcinogenic HPV types (alpha9 phylogenetic species, i.e. HPV 16) have a similar affinity for vaginal and cervical epithelium (resulting in similar recorded prevalences for any carcinogenic HPV type in vaginal and cervical specimens) [28], but non-carcinogenic HPV types of the alpha3/alpha15 (i.e. HPV 61) phylogenetic species may have a stronger affinity for vaginal epithelium [28].

Consistent with published data, we found that HPV 16 was the most prevalent HPV type (6.4%). We found a relatively low HPV 18 prevalence. In the light of studies documenting similar prevalence of any high-risk HPV in paired cervical and vaginal specimens this finding is of importance [28, 29], and we would expect to see a low prevalence of HPV 18 in cervical samples from the same population. A low prevalence of HPV 18 among women from post-Soviet countries has been documented in other studies [30]. HPV 6 and 11 (alpha10 phylogenetic species) are relatively rarely isolated from vaginal/cervical specimens (HPV 6 < 1.5% and HPV 11 < 0.5% from cervical and vaginal specimens in Castle et al 2007 [29]; HPV 6 < 2% and HPV 11 < 0.5% from cervical specimens in Butsch Kovacic et al 2006 [31]; and HPV 6 from vaginal specimens either physician or patient-collected < 3.5% in Moscicki et al [32]), findings that are similar to those in our study.

Based on the most recent studies (Table 4) we surmise that Estonia represents a typical eastern European country with higher HPV and high-risk HPV prevalences than those reported from neighboring countries with well-developed population-based cervical cancer screening programs (i.e. Finland, Sweden, Denmark).
Table 4

Studies describing HPV and high-risk type-specific prevalence from different countries

Country

Study design

Test method

HPV prevalence

Comment

Cervical cancer incidence rate per 100 000 [17] a

Denmark

Kjær SK, 2008 [20]

Population-based and opportunistic screening N = 11617

aged 15-93 years

Hybrid capture 2 testing

Any - 26.4%

High risk - 23%

HPV peak prevalence at the age 20-24 (50.2%)

Most prevalent high risk HPV 16 (6.0% of all women)

12.6

United Kingdom

Sargent A, 2008 [23]

Routine screening program,

N = 24510

aged 20-64 years

Hybrid capture 2 testing

High risk

All ages - 10.6%

20-29 y - 27.3%

30-39 y - 10.3%

40-49 y - 4.2%

50-64 y - 2.5%

Most prevalent high risk HPV 16, 18, 31, 51, 52

8.3

Finland

Leinonen M, 2008 [19]

Population based screening,

N = 16895

aged 25-65 years

Hybrid capture 2 testing

High risk - 7.5%

High risk HPV peak prevalence at the age 25-29 (24.1%)

4.3

Netherlands

Coupe VMH, 2008 [22]

RC population based screening trial

N = 45362

Aged 18-65

GP5+/6+-PCR EIA

High risk - 5.6%

High risk peak prevalence at the age 18-24 (21.2%)

Most prevalent high risk HPV 16, 31,18

7.3

Norway

Skjeldestad FE 2008 [21]

N = 898

Aged 16-24 (healthy, non-pregnant, sexually experienced)

PCR

HPV 6,11,16,18 - 26%

HPV 16, 18 - 20.8%

HPV 6, 11 - 9.6%

HPV 16 prevalence 16.3%

HPV 18 prevalence

7.3%

10.4

USA

Dunne EF, 2007 [4]

Probability sampling, nationally

representative sample (NHANES 2003-4)

N = 1921

Aged 14-59

PCR

Any - 26.8%

High risk - 15.2%

Low risk - 17.8%

HPV peak prevalence at the age 20 to 24 (44.8%)

Most prevalent high risk HPV 53, 52, 59

Most prevalent low risk HPV 62, 84, 89

7.7

Latvia

Silins I, 2004 [35]

Healthy controls from population registry

N = 239

aged 18-89

(cervical cancer risk factor study)

PCR

High risk - 8% (HPV 16 and 18 only)

 

12.9

Russia

Aleksandrova YN, 2000 [36]

Attendants of gynecological clinics

N = 309

reproductive age; lacking the clinical or morphological symptoms of

HPV-related diseases

PCR

Any - 29%

HPV were overrepresented among women

reporting excessive number of contraceptive abortions

11.9

Three NIS of former Soviet Union

Kulmala SM, 2007 [30]

Consecutive out-patient clinic attendees

N = 3187

(STI clinics n = 722, gynecological patients n = 761, cervical cancer screening n = 1,692)

Hybrid capture 2 testing

High risk - 31.2%

* STI clinic - 40.8%,

* gynecological patients - 30.9%,

* screening - 27.2%

Most prevalent high risk HPV 16, 31, 33

NA

Russia

Kulmala SM, 2007 [30]

Consecutive out-patient clinic attendees

N = 1967

Hybrid capture 2 testing

High risk - 33.4%,

Most prevalent high risk HPV 16, 31,33

11.9

Belarus

Kulmala SM, 2007 [30]

Consecutive out-patient clinic attendees

N = 568

Hybrid capture 2 testing

High risk - 27.5%,

Most prevalent high risk HPV 16, 33, 31

13.1

Latvia

Kulmala SM, 2007 [30]

Consecutive out-patient clinic attendees

N = 442

Hybrid capture 2 testing

High risk - 26.2%

Most prevalent high risk HPV 16, 33, 39

12.9

a Age-standardized rate

The overall HPV prevalence in our study population was high with the highest overall HPV prevalence among those aged 21-25 years (and the highest prevalence of high-risk HPV occurring in the 18-20 year age group) and declining with age. It is well known that sexually active young adults are most at risk for acquiring HPV. Beside young age, predictors of HPV infection included younger age at first sexual intercourse and higher number of sexual partners in the 12 months before the study. Our results are also in line with existing information on HPV epidemiology [26, 33, 34].

Our study has several limitations. This study was not originally designed to assess HPV prevalence, thus we do not have data on cervical cytology from participating women. The degree to which the study is representative of the general population may be affected by the low response rate and selection factors associated with response. It is very probable that non-responders and women who were not reachable are at higher risk of exposure to HPV. However, in our study, the probability of not responding was not related to ethnicity, residency or age, despite the correlation between young age and infection. Also, we were unable to include preadolescent women as this would have been ethically unjustifiable and impractical from a logistical standpoint. While it is reasonable to assume that the prevalence estimates from this study are somewhat inflated due to selective participation, the estimate is probably better than that based on traditional clinic-based findings which are not representative in Estonia.

Conclusion

Several factors affecting cervical cancer control are changing, including a better understanding of the natural history of HPV, reliable assays for detecting high-risk HPV infections, and the availability of effective preventive vaccines. However, there are important differences in the relevant policy questions for different settings. Local data including information on HPV (type specific) prevalence is needed for modeling in a decision analytic framework to identify those factors most likely to influence outcomes, provide insight into the cost-effectiveness of different strategies, and assist in early decision-making when weighed against equity, public preferences, and political and cultural constraints. Our study provides valuable baseline data about prevalence and type distribution of HPV prior to the introduction of HPV vaccination.

Notes

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by grants R01 TW006990 and D43 TW00233 from the Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Heath, USA, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme Ltd.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Public Health, University of Tartu
(2)
Quattromed HTI Laboratories Ltd
(3)
Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, State University of New York
(4)
Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center

References

  1. Koutsky L: Epidemiology of genital human papillomavirus infection. Am J Med. 1997, 102: 3-8. 10.1016/S0002-9343(97)00177-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Clifford GM, Smith JS, Aguardo T, Franceschi S: Comparison of HPV type distribution in high-grade cervical lesions and cervical cancer: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2003, 89: 101-105. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601024.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Anonymous: European Medicines Agency, EPARs for authorised medicinal products for human use. (http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/Humans/EPAR/gardasil/gardasil.htm, http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/Humans/EPAR/cervarix/cervarix.htm, accessed 29.09.2008)
  4. Dunne EF, Unger ER, Sternberg M, McQuillan G, Swan DC, Patel SS, Markowitz LE: Prevalence of HPV Infection Among Females in the United States. JAMA. 2007, 297 (8): 813-819. 10.1001/jama.297.8.813.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Arbyn M, Dillner J: Review of current knowledge on HPV vaccination: an appendix to the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening. J Clin Virol. 2007, 38 (3): 189-97. 10.1016/j.jcv.2006.12.009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Haug CJ: Human Papillomavirus Vaccination -- Reasons for Caution. N Engl J Med. 2008, 359: 861-862. 10.1056/NEJMe0804638.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Shah KV, Daniel RW, Tennant MK, Shah N, McKee JKT, Rompalo A: Diagnosis of human papillomavirus infection by dry vaginal swabs in military women. Sex Transmit Infect. 2001, 77: 260-264. 10.1136/sti.77.4.260.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown DR, Shew ML, Qadadri B, Neptune N, Vargas M, Tu W, Juliar BE, Breen TE, Fortenberry JD: A longitudinal study of genital human papillomavirus infection in a cohort of closely followed adolescent women. J Infect Dis. 2005, 191 (2): 182-92. 10.1086/426867.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Masek BJ, Arora N, Quinn N, Aumakhan B, Holden J, Hardick A, Agreda P, Barnes M, Gaydos CA: Performance of three nucleic acid amplification tests for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae by use of self-collected vaginal swabs obtained via an Internet-based screening program. J Clin Microbiol. 2009, 47 (6): 1663-7. 10.1128/JCM.02387-08.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaydos CA, Rompalo AM: The Use of Urine and Self-obtained Vaginal Swabs for the Diagnosis of Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2002, 4 (2): 148-157. 10.1007/s11908-002-0057-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Uusküla A, Kals M, Denks K, Nurm U, Kasesalu L, Dehovitz J, McNutt LA: The prevalence of chlamydial infection in Estonia: a population-based survey. Int J STD AIDS. 2008, 19 (7): 455-8. 10.1258/ijsa.2008.007325.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Saiki RK, Scharf S, Faloona F, Mullis KB, Horn GT, Erlich HA, Arnheim N: Enzymatic amplification of beta-globin genomic sequences and restriction site analysis for diagnosis of sickle cell anemia. Science. 1985, 230: 1350-4. 10.1126/science.2999980.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gravitt PE, Peyton CL, Alessi TQ, Wheeler CM, Coutlée F, Hildesheim A, Schiffman MH, Scott DR, Apple RJ: Improved Amplification of Genital Human Papillomaviruses. J Clin Microbiol. 2000, 38 (1): 357-61.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Meyer T, Arndt R, Stockfleth E, Flammann HT, Wolf H, Reischl U: Strategy for typing human papillomaviruses by RFLP analysis of PCR products and subsequent hybridization with a generic probe. Biotechniques. 1995, 19 (4): 632-9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Muñoz N, Castellsagué X, de González AB, Gissmann L: Chapter 1: HPV in the etiology of human cancer. Vaccine. 2006, 24 (S3): S1-S10. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.05.115.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Victora CG, Huttly SR, Fuchs SC, Olinto MT: The role of conceptual frameworks in epidemiological analysis: a hierarchical approach. International Journal of Epidemiology. 1997, 26 (1): 224-227. 10.1093/ije/26.1.224.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Anonymous: Human Papillomavirus and Cervical Cancer. Summary Report 2007. WHO/ICO Information Centre on HPV and Cervical Cancer (HPV Information Centre). accessed 10.09.2008, [http://www.who.int/hpvcentre/statistics/dynamic/ico/country_pdf/XEX.pdf?CFID=1179971&CFTOKEN=54301985]
  18. Goldie SJ, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Garnett GP: Chapter 18: Public health policy for cervical cancer prevention: The role of decision science, economic evaluation, and mathematical modeling. Vaccine. 2006, 24 (Suppl 3): S155-63. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.05.112.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Leinonen M, Kotaniemi-Talonen L, Anttila A, Dyba T, Tarkkanen J, Nieminen P: Prevalence of oncogenic human papillomavirus infection in an organised screening population in Finland. Int J Cancer. 2008, 123 (6): 1344-9. 10.1002/ijc.23670.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kjær SK, Breugelmans G, Munk C, Junge J, Watson M, Iftner T: Population-based prevalence, type- and age-specific distribution of HPV in women before introduction of an HPV-vaccination program in Denmark. Int J Cancer. 2008, 123 (8): 1864-1870. 10.1002/ijc.23712.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Skjeldestad FE, Mehta V, Sings HL, Øvreness T, Turpin J, Su L, Boerckel P, Roberts C, Bryan J, Jansen KU, Esser MT, Liaw KL: Seroprevalence and genital DNA prevalence of HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18 in a cohort of young Norwegian women: study design and cohort characteristics. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008, 87 (1): 81-8. 10.1080/00016340701714703.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Coupe VMH, Berkhof J, Bulkmans NWJ, Snijders PJF, Meijer CJLM: Age-dependent prevalence of 14 high-risk HPV types in the Netherlands: implications for prophylactic vaccination and screening. Br J Cancer. 2008, 98: 646-651. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604162.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Sargent A, Bailey A, Almonte M, Turner A, Thomson C, Peto J, Desai M, Mather J, Moss S, Roberts C, Kitchener HC, ARTISTIC Study Group: Prevalence of type-specific HPV infection by age and grade of cervical cytology: data from the ARTISTIC trial. Br J Cancer. 2008, 98 (10): 1704-9. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604324.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Petignat P, Faltin DL, Bruchim I, Tramèr MR, Franco EL, Coutlée F: Are self-collected samples comparable to physician-collected cervical specimens for human papillomavirus DNA testing? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol. 2007, 105 (2): 530-5. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.01.023.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Stewart DE, Gagliardi A, Johnston M, Howlett R, Barata P, Lewis N, Oliver T, Mai V: HPV Self-collection Guidelines Panel. Self-collected samples for testing of oncogenic human papillomavirus: a systematic review. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2007, 29 (10): 817-28.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Trottier H, Franco EL: The epidemiology of genital human papillomavirus infection. Vaccine. 2006, 24 (suppl 1): S1-S15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kreimer AR, Katki HA, Schiffman M, Wheeler CM, Castle PE, ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study Group: Viral determinants of human papillomavirus persistence following loop electrical excision procedure treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007, 16 (1): 11-6. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0710.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Winer RL, Hughes JP, Feng Q, O'Reilly S, Kiviat NB, Koutsky LA: Comparison of Incident Cervical and Vulvar/Vaginal Human Papillomavirus Infections in Newly Sexually Active Young Women. J Infect Dis. 2009, 199 (6): 815-8. 10.1086/597118.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Castle PE, Rodriguez AC, Porras C, Herrero R, Schiffman M, Gonzalez P, Hildesheim A, Burk RD: A comparison of cervical and vaginal human papillomavirus. Sex Transm Dis. 2007, 34 (11): 849-55. 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e318064c8c5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Kulmala SM, Shabalova IP, Petrovitchev N, Syrjänen KJ, Gyllensten UB, Syrjänen SM, NIS Study Group: Prevalence of the most common high-risk HPV genotypes among women in three new independent states of the former Soviet Union. J Med Virol. 2007, 79 (6): 771-81. 10.1002/jmv.20839.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Butsch Kovacic M, Castle PE, Herrero R, Schiffman M, Sherman ME, Wacholder S, Rodriguez AC, Hutchinson ML, Bratti MC, Hildesheim A, Morales J, Alfaro M, Burk RD: Relationships of human papillomavirus type, qualitative viral load, and age with cytologic abnormality. Cancer Res. 2006, 66 (20): 10112-9. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-1812.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Moscicki AB, Widdice L, Ma Y, Farhat S, Miller-Benningfield S, Jonte J, Jay J, Goodwin-Demedina C, Hanson E, Clayton L, Shiboski S: Comparison of natural histories of human papillomavirus (HPV) detected by clinician- and self-sampling. Int J Cancer. 2010.Google Scholar
  33. Shikary T, Bernstein DI, Jin Y, Zimet GD, Rosenthal SL, Kahn JA: Epidemiology and risk factors for human papillomavirus infection in a diverse sample of low-income young women. J Clin Virol. 2009, 46 (2): 107-11. 10.1016/j.jcv.2009.07.006.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Velicer C, Zhu X, Vuocolo S, Liaw KL, Saah A: Prevalence and incidence of HPV genital infection in women. Sex Transm Dis. 2009, 36 (11): 696-703. 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3181ad25ff.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Silins I, Wang X, Tadesse A, Jansen KU, Schiller JT, Avall-Lundqvist E, Frankendal B, Dillner J: A population-based study of cervical carcinoma and HPV infection in Latvia. Gynecol Oncol. 2004, 93 (2): 484-92. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.01.044.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Aleksandrova IN, Lyshchëv AA, Safronnikova NR, Rudenko VI, Imianitov EN, Khnason KP: Papillomavirus infection in healthy women from St. Petersburg. Vopr Onkol. 2000, 46 (2): 175-9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/10/63/prepub

Copyright

© Uusküla et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement