Does HPV-18 co-infection increase the risk of cervical pathology in individuals with HPV-16?

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate differences between HPV-16 mono- and HPV-16/18 co-infections in terms of cervical dysplasia and invasive cancer. METHODS: This multicentre, retrospective study spanned from December 2017 to December 2020, involving women who visited gynaecological oncology clinics for colposcopy with either HPV-16 or HPV-16/18 positivity. A total of 736 patients, 670 in Group 1 (HPV-16 positivity) and 66 in Group 2 (HPV-16/18 positivity), were compared for the presence of CIN2+ lesions detected by colposcopic biopsy or endocervical curettage (ECC). Exclusions included hysterectomized patients, those with prior gynaecological cancers, and patients with HPV positivity other than types 16 and 18. RESULTS: Among the included patients, 42.4% had a diagnosis of CIN2+ lesions. The cytology results demonstrated abnormal findings in 45.3% in Group 1 and 42.2% in Group 2, with no significant difference between the groups. ECC revealed CIN2+ lesion in 49 (8.7%) patients in group 1, while only 1 (1.7%) patient had CIN2+ lesion in group 2. There was no difference between 2 groups in terms of ECC result (p = 0.052). In group 1, 289 (43.1%) patients had CIN2+ lesion, while 23 (34.8%) patients had CIN2+ lesions in group 2. There was no difference between group 1 and 2 in terms of diagnosis of CIN2+ lesions (p = 0.19). CONCLUSION: This multicentre retrospective study found no significant differences between HPV-16 mono- and HPV-16/18 co-infections regarding cervical pathologies. Larger studies are needed to validate and further explore these findings.

Defining the relationship between ovarian adult granulosa cell tumors and synchronous endometrial pathology: Does ovarian tumor size correlate with endometrial cancer?

OBJECTIVE: The main feature of adult granulosa cell tumors (AGCT) is their capacity to secrete hormones, with nearly all of them capable of synthesizing oestradiol. The primary goal of this study is to identify synchronized endometrial pathologies, particularly endometrial cancer, in AGCT patients who had undergone a hysterectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study cohort comprised retrospectively of 316 AGCT patients from 10 tertiary gynecological oncology centers. AGCT surgery consisted of bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, hysterectomy, peritoneal cytology, omentectomy, and the excision of any suspicious lesion. The median tumor size value was used to define the relationship between tumor size and endometrial cancer. The relationship between each value and endometrial cancer was evaluated. RESULTS: Endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia, or hyperplasia with complex atypia, was detected in 7.3% of patients, and endometrial cancer in 3.1% of patients. Age, menopausal status, tumor size, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, ascites, and CA-125 level were not statistically significant factors to predict endometrial cancer. There was no endometrial cancer under the age of 40, and 97.8% of women diagnosed with endometrial hyperplasia were over the age of 40. During the menopausal period, the endometrial cancer risk was 4.5%. Developing endometrial cancer increased to 12.1% from 3.2% when the size of the tumor was >150 mm in menopausal patients (p = 0.036). CONCLUSION: Endometrial hyperplasia, or cancer, occurs in approximately 30% of AGCT patients. Patients diagnosed with AGCT, especially those older than 40 years, should be evaluated for endometrial pathologies. There may be a relationship between tumor size and endometrial cancer, especially in menopausal patients.