Worldwide human papillomavirus genotype attribution in over 2000 cases of intraepithelial and invasive lesions of the vulva.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) contribution in vulvar intraepithelial lesions (VIN) and invasive vulvar cancer (IVC) is not clearly established. This study provides novel data on HPV markers in a large series of VIN and IVC lesions. METHODS: Histologically confirmed VIN and IVC from 39 countries were assembled at the Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO). HPV-DNA detection was done by polymerase chain reaction using SPF-10 broad-spectrum primers and genotyping by reverse hybridisation line probe assay (LiPA25) (version 1). IVC cases were tested for p16(INK4a) by immunohistochemistry (CINtec histology kit, ROCHE). An IVC was considered HPV driven if both HPV-DNA and p16(INK4a) overexpression were observed simultaneously. Data analyses included algorithms allocating multiple infections to calculate type-specific contribution and logistic regression models to estimate adjusted prevalence (AP) and its 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Of 2296 cases, 587 were VIN and 1709 IVC. HPV-DNA was detected in 86.7% and 28.6% of the cases respectively. Amongst IVC cases, 25.1% were both HPV-DNA and p16(INK4a) positive. IVC cases were largely keratinising squamous cell carcinoma (KSCC) (N=1234). Overall prevalence of HPV related IVC cases was highest in younger women for any histological subtype. SCC with warty or basaloid features (SCC_WB) (N=326) were more likely to be HPV and p16(INK4a) positive (AP=69.5%, CI=63.6-74.8) versus KSCC (AP=11.5%, CI=9.7-13.5). HPV 16 was the commonest type (72.5%) followed by HPV 33 (6.5%) and HPV 18 (4.6%). Enrichment from VIN to IVC was significantly high for HPV 45 (8.5-fold). CONCLUSION: Combined data from HPV-DNA and p16(INK4a) testing are likely to represent a closer estimate of the real fraction of IVC induced by HPV. Our results indicate that HPV contribution in invasive vulvar cancer has probably been overestimated. HPV 16 remains the major player worldwide.

Traditional care of the perineum during birth. A prospective, randomized, multicenter study of 1,076 women.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of the traditional hands-on versus the innovative hands-poised method on the risk of perineal trauma during vaginal delivery and on neonatal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: In a prospective, randomized, multicenter study, 1,161 of 1,505 women giving birth at the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the University Hospital of Vienna and Semmelweis Women's Hospital, Vienna, between February and September 1999, were randomized into the trial. In the hands-on method, the left hand of the midwife puts pressure on the infant's head, and the right hand is placed against the perineum. In the hands-poised method, the midwife guides the parturient through the birth without touching the perineum, prepared to apply light pressure on the infant's head. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-seven of 574 women (32.5%) in the hands-on group and 180 of 502 women (35.8%) in the hands-poised group experienced perineal tears (P = .5). Sixteen women (2.7%) treated with the hands-on method developed third-degree perineal tears as compared with five women (0.9%) treated with the hands-poised method (P < .05). In the hands-on group, 103 women (17.9%) underwent episiotomy as compared with 51 cases (10.1%) in the hands-poised group (P < .01). No significant differences in neonatal outcomes were observed between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that a policy of hands-poised care is more suitable for preserving the perineum during birth and is a safe and effective birthing alternative for women.