HSIL患者不同手术方式后HPV的转归及影响因素
Regression of HPV in HSIL Patients after Different Surgical Procedures and Factors Affecting It
DOI:10.12677/md.2024.143039,PDF,HTML,XML,下载: 3浏览: 14
作者:司晓辉,樊家岚*:江苏大学附属澳洋医院妇科,江苏 张家港
关键词:HSILHPV不同术式HSILHPVDifferent Modalities
摘要:目的:研究HSIL患者进行不同手术方式的处理,随后对患者进行随访,对患者后期HPV的转归结果进行分析。方法:搜集2023年1月至2024年1月就诊于我院的HSIL并接受手术治疗的患者90名,其中按手术方式的不同分为3组,分别是CKC组、LEEP组、锐扶刀组各30名。对于不同手术方式的患者3、6、12个月进行HPV的检测。结果:① 三组患者一般资料对比,年龄、孕次、产次、是否绝经、有无阴道炎、HPV的感染情况对比,差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05);② 三组患者手术资料的对比,术后切缘状态、是否累腺,三组间比较差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05),锥切深度的不同在三组间比较差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05);③ 3、6、12个月时间,三组HPV检测对比,差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05);④ 将HPV的转阴情况进行多因素分析,可得出是否有阴道炎、是否累及腺体、是否绝经与HPV转阴情况有相关性(P < 0.05);锥切深度与HPV转阴情况没有相关性(P > 0.05)。结论:HSIL患者不同手术方式均有一定的治疗效果,且术后HPV转阴率与绝经、阴道炎、累腺因素相关。
Abstract:Study of HSIL patients who underwent different surgical modalities and were subsequently followed up to analyze the outcome of late HPV regression in patients. Methods: Ninety patients with HSIL who attended our hospital from January 2023 to January 2024 and underwent surgical treatment were collected, of which 30 patients were divided into three groups according to the different surgical methods, namely, 30 patients each in the CKC group, the LEEP group, and the Sharp Knife group. HPV testing was performed at 3, 6, and 12 months for patients with different surgical procedures. In the end ① Comparison of the general information of the three groups of patients, age, pregnancy, delivery, whether menopause, the presence of vaginitis, HPV infection comparison, the difference is not statistically significant (P > 0.05); ② Comparison of the three groups of patients’ surgical data, postoperative margin status, whether the gland is tired, the difference is not statistically significant among the three groups (P > 0.05), the difference between the three groups of the cone depth of the different comparison of the three groups statistically significant (P < 0.05); ③ 3, 6, 12 months time, the three groups of HPV testing comparison, the difference is not statistically significant (P > 0.05); ④ A multifactorial analysis of the HPV conversion status can be concluded that there is a correlation between whether or not there is vaginitis, whether or not there is gland involvement, and whether or not there is menopause, and the HPV conversion status (P < 0.05); there is no correlation between the depth of conization and the HPV conversion status (P > 0.05). Conclude: The different surgical modalities in HSIL patients were effective, and the postoperative HPV conversion rate was correlated with menopause, vaginitis, and tired gland factors.
文章引用:司晓辉, 樊家岚. HSIL患者不同手术方式后HPV的转归及影响因素[J]. 医学诊断, 2024, 14(3): 265-270. https://doi.org/10.12677/md.2024.143039

1. 引言

宫颈癌是一种高发的恶性肿瘤,其发病与人类乳头瘤病毒(HPV)感染密切相关[1][2]。上皮内病变(SIL)是一组进展缓慢、相对可逆的宫颈疾病,与浸润性宫颈癌的发展密切相关。根据世界卫生组织2014年提出的分类方法,它们可分为低度鳞状上皮内病变(Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion, LSIL)和高度鳞状上皮内病变(High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion, HSIL)[3]。其中,约60%的LSIL会自然消退,但HSIL有潜在的癌症风险,应尽快治疗以防止病情恶化[4][5]。流行病学研究表明[6][7],人乳头瘤病毒感染的终生患病率约为70%,在性活跃的妇女中可能更高,10%~20%的感染是持续性的,而持续性的人乳头瘤病毒–人乳头瘤病毒感染与HSIL的发生密切相关,HSIL被认为是宫颈癌的第一阶段[8]-[10]

2. 资料与方法

2.1. 一般资料

搜集2023年1月至2024年1月就诊于我院的HSIL并接受手术治疗的患者90名,其中按手术方式的不同分为3组,分别是CKC组、LEEP组、锐扶刀组各30名。对于不同手术方式的患者3、6、12个月进行HPV的检测。纳入标准:① 经病理已明确诊断为HSIL (CINII-CINIII)且近期未进行干扰素抗病毒治疗;② 既往无宫颈手术史;③ 患者资料完整。排除标准:① 经病理结果已提示腺癌、原位癌、浸润癌者;② 近期已经过不规范的药物治疗或手术治疗;③ 患者资料不完整。

2.2. 病理检测方法

在纳入标准范围内的患者进行阴道镜检查,对于可疑部位进行宫颈活检,将宫颈组织送检,经过组织固定、脱色、染色等一系列处理,出具病理结果。

2.3. 统计学处理

采用SPSS 26.0统计软件分析,用秩和检验分析组间的差异;定量资料采用卡方检验,P < 0.05为差异有统计学意义。先采用二元logistic回归分析对术后HPV转阴的影响因素进行单因素分析。

3. 结果

3.1. 三组研究对象一般资料对比

三组患者的年龄进行对比,其中CKC组年龄54.53 ± 9.62 (岁),LEEP刀组年龄51.68 ± 8.65 (岁),锐扶刀组年龄53.12 ± 7.05 (岁),三组患者的年龄进行秩和检验,H = 1.997,P = 0.059,三组间年龄对比差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05);三组患者孕次进行Fisher确切概率法分析,差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05);三组患者产次进行Fisher确切概率法分析,差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05);三组患者是否绝经进行Fisher确切概率法分析,差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05);三组患者是否有阴道炎进行Fisher确切概率法分析,差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05);三组患者HPV感染情况进行Fisher确切概率法分析,差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05) (具体详见表1)。

Table 1.Comparison of general information of the three study groups

1.三组研究对象一般资料对比

年龄

CKC组(n = 30)

LEEP刀组(n = 30)

锐扶刀组(n = 30)

χ2/H

P

54.53 ± 9.62

51.68 ± 8.65

53.12 ± 7.05

1.997

0.059

孕次

0.076*

<1次

8

10

7

≥2次

22

20

23

产次

0.924*

<1次

18

21

26

≥2次

12

9

4

是否绝经

0.783*

20

23

21

10

7

9

有无阴道炎

0.751*

20

22

17

10

8

13

HPV感染

0.064*

单一感染

19

17

18

多重感染

11

13

12

注意:*为Fisher确切概率法。

3.2. 三组患者手术资料对比

三组患者术后切缘状态进行Fisher确切概率法分析,差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05);三组患者锥切深度进行Fisher确切概率法分析,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05);三组患者是否累腺进行Fisher确切概率法分析,差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05) (具体详见表2)。

Table 2.Comparison of the surgical data of the three groups of patients

2.三组患者手术资料对比

CKC组(n = 30)

LEEP刀组(n = 30)

锐扶刀组(n = 30)

P

术后切缘状态

0.572*

阴性

28

29

27

阳性

2

1

3

锥切深度

<0.001*

≤2 cm

19

12

17

>2 cm

11

18

13

是否累腺

0.056*

24

21

20

6

9

10

注意:*为Fisher确切概率法。

3.3. 三组患者术后HPV随访转阴情况

三组患者根据3、6、12个月时间进行HPV的检测,评估患者进行不同手术方式,不同随访时间的转阴率情况,3、6、12个月时间,三组HPV检测对比,差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05) (具体详见表3)。

Table 3.Postoperative HPV conversion in the three groups of patients at follow-up visit

3.三组患者术后HPV随访转阴情况

时间

CKC组

LEEP刀组

锐扶刀组

P

3个月

0.512*

阴性

27

26

27

阳性

3

4

3

6个月

0.632*

阴性

28

29

27

阳性

2

1

3

12个月

0.432*

阴性

26

24

25

阳性

4

6

5

注意:*为Fisher确切概率法。

3.4. HPV转归结果(转阴率)多因素Logistic回归

将HPV的转阴情况进行多因素分析,可得出有阴道炎与HPV转阴情况有相关性(P < 0.05);累及腺体与HPV转阴情况有相关性(P < 0.05);绝经与HPV转阴情况有相关性(P < 0.05);锥切深度与HPV转阴情况没有相关性(P > 0.05) (具体详见表4)。

Table 4.Multifactorial logistic regression of HPV regression results

4.HPV转归结果多因素logistic回归

因素

分组

B

S.E

Wald

P

OR

OR值的95% CI

是否有阴道炎

*

1.658

0.435

14.563

0.001

5.250

(2.240~12.303)

是否累腺

*

4.375

1.682

6.763

0.009

79.438

(2.938~21.712)

是否绝经

*

0.687

0.358

3.683

0.045

1.988

(0.985~4.009)

锥切深度

−0.160

0.210

0.574

0.449

0.853

(0.564~1.288)

4. 讨论

大量研究表明,90%以上的人乳头瘤病毒感染是可以治愈的,其中只有一小部分会发展为持续感染,进而刺激宫颈组织增生,导致宫颈癌[11]。在这一过程中,HPV持续感染发挥了重要作用[12][13]。所以要阻止患者治疗后HPV持续感染这一情况就显得尤为重要。

宫颈转化区也称为移行带,位于宫颈鳞状上皮与柱状上皮交界部位,转化区成熟的化生鳞状上皮对致癌物的刺激不敏感,但未成熟的化生鳞状上皮却代谢活跃,在人乳头瘤病毒等作用下,可以发生一系列变化,从而导致正常宫颈向上皮内瘤变进展,进而发展为浸润性癌[14]。所以在进行宫颈癌筛查时,转化区是宫颈癌筛查中最重要的部分,因为它是大多数宫颈癌前病变和癌症的发源地。但是宫颈转化区的类型可能会影响阴道镜检查的准确性,尤其是III型转化区[15],相关研究已经证实宫颈的III型转化区与漏诊癌前病变或癌变有关,III型转化区的漏诊风险可能增加4~5倍[16]

5. 总结

本研究发现,不同的手术方式均对于患者HPV感染的治疗有一定效果,术后随访HPV转阴率均尚可,且随着时间的推移,转移率不断提高。且对于术后随访HPV转阴率与患者有阴道炎、累及腺体、已绝经有相关性。但此次研究数据有限,导致数据结果有偏倚,故后期可以扩大样本量,进一步进行研究,对于HSIL患者的处理方式会更加成熟,从而更大程度上对于HSIL患者后期HPV的转阴率有更好的效果。

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] 赵丽雅, 庞晓燕, 张颐, 等. 辽宁地区12307例女性宫颈高危型人乳头瘤病毒感染筛查结果分析[J]. 中国现代医学杂志, 2015, 25(26): 64-67.
[2] 中国优生科学协会阴道镜和宫颈病理学分会专家委员会. 中国子宫颈癌筛查及异常管理相关问题专家共识(一) [J]. 中国妇产科临床杂志, 2017, 18(2): 190-192.
[3] Santesso, N., Mustafa, R.A., Wiercioch, W., Kehar, R., Gandhi, S., Chen, Y.,etal. (2015) Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Benefits and Harms of Cryotherapy, LEEP, and Cold Knife Conization to Treat Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia.InternationalJournalofGynecology&Obstetrics, 132, 266-271.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.07.026
[4] Huang, H., Tung, H., Yang, L., Chao, A., Tang, Y., Chou, H.,etal. (2020) Role of Human Papillomavirus Status after Conization for High‐Grade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia.InternationalJournalofCancer, 148, 665-672.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33251
[5] Yu, Y., Han, L., Yu, W.,etal. (2017) High Risk Factors Associated with HPV Persistence after Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure in Patients with Intraepithelial Neoplasia.InternationalJournalofClinicalandExperimentalPathology, 10, 1817-1824.
[6] 曹佳宇, 白洁, 董建新, 等. 高度鳞状上皮内病变患者宫颈冷刀锥切术后HPV持续感染的影响因素[J]. 中国妇幼保健, 2018, 33(4): 745-747.
[7] Kim, Y., Lee, J.M., Hur, S., Cho, C., Kim, Y.T., Kim, S.C.,etal. (2010) Clearance of Human Papillomavirus Infection after Successful Conization in Patients with Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia.InternationalJournalofCancer, 126, 1903-1909.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.24794
[8] Ouh, Y., Cho, H.W., Kim, S.M., Min, K., Lee, S., Song, J.,etal. (2020) Risk Factors for Type-Specific Persistence of High-Risk Human Papillomavirus and Residual/Recurrent Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia after Surgical Treatment.Obstetrics&GynecologyScience, 63, 631-642.
https://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.20049
[9] Ayhan, A., Tuncer, H.A., Reyhan, N.H., Kuscu, E. and Dursun, P. (2016) Risk Factors for Residual Disease after Cervical Conization in Patients with Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grades 2 and 3 and Positive Surgical Margins.EuropeanJournalofObstetrics&GynecologyandReproductiveBiology, 201, 1-6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.03.021
[10] Pirtea, L., Grigoraş, D., Matusz, P., Pirtea, M., Moleriu, L., Tudor, A.,etal. (2016) Human Papilloma Virus Persistence after Cone Excision in Women with Cervical High Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion: A Prospective Study.CanadianJournalofInfectiousDiseasesandMedicalMicrobiology, 2016, Article 3076380.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3076380
[11] 闫晓景. 中西医结合治疗宫颈人乳头瘤病毒感染临床分析[J]. 中国实用医刊, 2013, 40(2): 83-84.
[12] Amador-Molina, A., Hernández-Valencia, J., Lamoyi, E., Contreras-Paredes, A. and Lizano, M. (2013) Role of Innate Immunity against Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Infections and Effect of Adjuvants in Promoting Specific Immune Response.Viruses, 5, 2624-2642.
https://doi.org/10.3390/v5112624
[13] Bibrzycki, L. and Kaminskl, R. (2015) Deregulation of Innate and Adaptive Immune Responses in Human Papillomavirus Infection and Cancer.Physical Review D:Particles and Fields, 87, 526-538.
[14] Zhang, L., Dong, B. and Yuan, X. (2022) Expression of ALDH1 Plays the Important Role during Generation and Progression in Human Cervical Cancer.BiotechnologyandGeneticEngineeringReviews.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02648725.2022.2161211
[15] Fan, A., Zhang, L., Wang, C., Wang, Y., Han, C. and Xue, F. (2017) Analysis of Clinical Factors Correlated with the Accuracy of Colposcopically Directed Biopsy.ArchivesofGynecologyandObstetrics, 296, 965-972.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4500-z
[16] Manga, S.M., Liang, M.I., Ye, Y., Szychowski, J.M., Nulah, K.L., Tita, A.T.,etal. (2022) Effect of Misoprostol on Type 3 Transformation Zone of the Cervix among Cameroonian Women.GynecologicOncologyReports, 40, Article 100944.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gore.2022.100944

为你推荐










Baidu
map