Molecular Diagnosis

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 129–142 | Cite as

Molecular Basis for Advances in Cervical Screening

Review Article


Human papillomaviruses (HPVs) cause cervical lesions, which can, in some instances, progress to high-grade neoplasia and cancer. Around half a million cases of cervical cancer occur each year, with most occurring in developing countries where cervical cancer is a major cause of cancer-related death. The reduction in cervical cancer incidence in developed countries is largely attributed to the introduction of cervical screening.

Cervical screening currently depends on the identification by cytology of abnormalities in cells taken from the surface of the cervix. The standard Pap test was developed >50 years ago, and despite modifications, still forms the basis of the test currently in use in most routine screening laboratories. Advances in our understanding of the molecular mechanisms that lead to the development of cervical cancer have been slow to impact on screening, despite the relatively high false-negative rates that can be associated with the conventional Pap smear.

Improvements in screening strategies fall into a number of categories. Methods that improve cell presentation and attempt to eliminate artefacts/obscuring debris can be combined with image analysis systems in order to enhance diagnostic accuracy. Such approaches still rely on cytological evaluation and do not incorporate advances in our knowledge of how HPV causes cancer. By contrast, markers of virus infection or cell cycle entry, particularly those that offer some degree of prognostic significance, may be able to highlight abnormal cells more reliably than cytology, and could be combined with cytology to improve the detection rate. Our understanding of the molecular biology of HPV infection and the organization of the HPV life-cycle during cancer progression provides a rational basis for marker selection. The general assumption that persistent active infection by high-risk HPV types is the true precursor of cervical cancer provides the rationale for HPV DNA testing in conjunction with enhanced cytology, while the development of RNA-based approaches should allow active infections to be distinguished from those that are latent. The detection in superficial cells of marker combinations at the level of RNA or protein has the potential to predict disease status more precisely than the detection of markers in isolation. There is also a need for better prognostic markers if the predictive value of screening is to be improved.

The potential to control infection by vaccination should reduce the incidence of HPV-associated neoplasia in the population, and this may cause a change in the way that screening is carried out. Nevertheless, the lack of a therapeutic vaccine, and the difficulties associated with eliminating infection by multiple high-risk HPV types, means that some form of screening will still be required as a preventive measure for the control of cervical cancer for the foreseeable future.


Cervical Cancer Cervical Screening Routine Screening Program Viral Oncogene Expression Lower Epithelial Layer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Dr Doorbar is a program leader at the National Institute for Medical research and is supported by the UK Medical Research Council. Dr Cubic is a consultant clinical scientist employed by NHS Lothian.

The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.


  1. 1.
    de Villiers EM, Fauquet C, Broker TR, et al. Classification of papillomaviruses. Virology 2004; 324: 17–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antonsson A, Erfurt C, Hazard K, et al. Prevalence and type spectrum of human papillomaviruses in healthy skin samples collected in three continents. J Gen Virol 2003; 84: 1881–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antonsson A, Hansson BG. Healthy skin of many animal species harbors papillomaviruses which are closely related to their human counterparts. J Virol 2002; 76: 12537–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Antonsson A, Karanfilovska S, Lindqvist PG, et al. General acquisition of human papillomavirus infections of skin occurs in early infancy. J Clin Microbiol 2003; 41: 2509–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doorbar J. The papillomavirus life cycle. J Clin Virol 2005; 32 Suppl. 1: 7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Munoz N, Bosch FX, Castellsague X, et al. Against which human papillomavirus types shall we vaccinate and screen? The international perspective. Int J Cancer 2004; 111: 278–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, et al. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2005; 55: 74–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carmichael DE. The Pap smear: life of George Papanicolaou. Springfield (IL): Charles C Thomas, 1973Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Papanicolaou GN. A new procedure for staining vaginal smears. Science 1942; 95: 438–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Papanicolaou GN, Traut HF. Diagnosis of uterine cancer by vaginal smear. New York: Commonwealth Fund, 1943Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peto J, Gilham C, Fletcher O, et al. The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK. Lancet 2004; 364: 249–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marshall PN. Papanicolaou staining: a review. Microsc Acta 1983; 87: 233–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Walboomers J, Jacobs M, Manos MM, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999; 189: 12–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martin-Hirsch PL, Koliopoulos G, Paraskevaidis E. Is it now time to evaluate the true accuracy of cervical cytology screening? A review of the literature. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2002; 23: 363–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clavel C, Masure M, Bory JP, et al. Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions: a study of 7932 women. Br J Cancer 2001; 84: 1616–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, et al. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytological abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132: 810–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sankaranarayanan R, Thara S, Sharma A, et al. Accuracy of conventional cytology: results from a multicentre screening study in India. J Med Screen 2004; 11: 77–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cheung AN, Szeto EF, Leung BS, et al. Liquid-based cytology and conventional cervical smears: a comparison study in an Asian screening population. Cancer 2003; 99: 331–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fremont-Smith M, Marino J, Griffin B, et al. Comparison of the SurePath liquid-based Papanicolaou smear with the conventional Papanicolaou smear in a multisite direct-to-vial study. Cancer 2004; 102: 269–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McGoogan E. Liquid-based cytology: the new screening test for cervical cancer control. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2004; 30: 123–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wilbur DC. Cervical cytology automation: an update for 2003. The end of the quest nears? Clin Lab Med 2003; 23: 755–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stevens MW, Milne AJ, James KA, et al. Effectiveness of automated cervical cytology rescreening using the AutoPap 300 QC system. Diagn Cytopathol 1997; 16: 505–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smith BL, Lee M, Leader S, et al. Economic impact of automated primary screening for cervical cancer. J Reprod Med 1999; 44: 518–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heselmeyer-Haddad K, Sommerfeld K, White NM, et al. Genomic amplification of the human telomerase gene (TERC) in pap smears predicts the development of cervical cancer. Am J Pathol 2005; 166: 1229–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van den Brule AJ, Pol R, Fransen-Daalmeijer N, et al. GP5+/6+ PCR followed by reverse line blot analysis enables rapid and high-throughput identification of human papillomavirus genotypes. J Clin Microbiol 2002; 40: 779–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cuschieri KS, Cubie HA. The role of human papillomavirus testing in cervical screening. J Clin Virol 2005; 32 Suppl. 1: S34–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kleter B, van Doorn LJ, Schrauwen L, et al. Development and clinical evaluation of a highly sensitive PCR-reverse hybridization line probe assay for detection and identification of anogenital human papillomavirus. J Clin Microbiol 1999; 37: 2508–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cuzick J, Szarewski A, Cubie H, et al. Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART study. Lancet 2003; 362: 1871–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goldie SJ, Kuhn L, Denny L, et al. Policy analysis of cervical cancer screening strategies in low-resource settings: clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness. JAMA 2001; 285: 3107–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Manos MM, Kinney WK, Hurley LB, et al. Identifying women with cervical neoplasia: using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results. JAMA 1999; 281: 1605–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bulkmans NW, Rozendaal L, Snijders PJ, et al. POBASCAM, a population-based randomized controlled trial for implementation of high-risk HPV testing in cervical screening: design, methods and baseline data of 44,102 women. Int J Cancer 2004; 110: 94–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kitchener H, Wheeler CM, Desai M, et al. The Artistic Trial: a randomised trial in screening to improve cytology. The 21st International Papillomavirus Conference; 2004 Feb 20–26; Mexico City, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Arbyn M, Buntinx F, Van Ranst M, et al. Virologic versus cytologic triage of women with equivocal Pap smears: a meta-analysis of the accuracy to detect high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96: 280–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Peyton CL, Gravitt PE, Hunt WC, et al. Determinants of genital human papillomavirus detection in a US population. J Infect Dis 2001; 183: 1554–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Middleton K, Peh W, Southern SA, et al. Organisation of the human papillomavirus productive cycle during neoplastic progression provides a basis for the selection of diagnostic markers. J Virol 2003; 77: 10186–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Munger K, Baldwin A, Edwards KM, et al. Mechanisms of human papillomavirus-induced oncogenesis. J Virol 2004; 78: 11451–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chow LT, Broker TR. In vitro experimental systems for HPV: epithelial raft cultures for investigations of viral reproduction and pathogenesis and for genetic analyses of viral proteins and regulatory sequences. Clin Dermatol 1997; 15: 217–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chow LT, Broker TR. Papillomavirus DNA replication. Intervirology 1994; 37: 150–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zou N, Liu JS, Kuo SR, et al. The carboxyl-terminal region of the human papillomavirus type 16 E1 protein determines E2 protein specificity during DNA replication. J Virol 1998; 72: 3436–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bodily JM, Meyers C. Genetic analysis of the human papillomavirus type 31 differentiation-dependent late promoter. J Virol 2005; 79: 3309–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Di Lonardo AD, Marcante ML, Poggiali F, et al. Egg yolk antibodies against the E7 oncogenic protein of human papillomavirus type 16. Arch Virol 2001; 146: 117–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fiedler M, Muller-Holzner E, Vierter HP, et al. High level HPV-16 E7 oncoprotein expression correlates with reduced pRb-levels in cervical biopsies. FASEB J2004; 18: 1120–2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gal AA, Saul SH, Stoler MH. In situ hybridization analysis of human papillomavirus in anal squamous cell carcinoma. Mod Pathol 1989; 2: 439–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wilbur DC, Reichman RC, Stoler MH. Detection of infection by human papillomavirus in genital condylomata: a comparison study using immunocytochemistry and in situ nucleic acid hybridization. Am J Clin Pathol 1988; 89: 505–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Klaes R, Friedrich T, Spitkovsky D, et al. Overexpression of p16(INK4A) as a specific marker for dysplastic and neoplastic epithelial cells of the cervix uteri. Int J Cancer 2001; 92: 276–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Chatrath P, Scott IS, Morris LS, et al. Aberrant expression of minichromosome maintenance protein-2 and Ki67 in laryngeal squamous epithelial lesions. Br J Cancer 2003; 89: 1048–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Davidson EJ, Morris LS, Scott IS, et al. Minichromosome maintenance (Mem) proteins, cyclin B1 and D1, phosphohistone H3 and in situ DNA replication for functional analysis of vulval intraepithelial neoplasia. Br J Cancer 2003; 88: 257–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ha SA, Shin SM, Namkoong H, et al. Cancer-associated expression of minichromosome maintenance 3 gene in several human cancers and its involvement in tumorigenesis. Clin Cancer Res 2004; 10: 8386–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Stoeber K, Halsall I, Freeman A, et al. Immunoassay for urothelial cancers that detects DNA replication protein Mcm5 in urine. Lancet 1999; 354: 1524–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Williams GH, Romanowski P, Morris LS, et al. Improved cervical smear assessment using antibodies against proteins that regulate DNA replication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1998; 95: 14932–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    von Knebel Doeberitz M. New markers for cervical dysplasia to visualise the genomic chaos created by aberrant oncogenic papillomavirus infections. Eur J Cancer 2002; 38: 2229–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Murphy N, Ring M, Heffron CC, et al. p16INK4A, CDC6, and MCM5: predictive biomarkers in cervical preinvasive neoplasia and cervical cancer. J Clin Pathol 2005; 58: 525–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sahebali S, Depuydt CE, Segers K, et al. P16INK4a as an adjunct marker in liquid-based cervical cytology. Int J Cancer 2004; 108: 871–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Trunk MJ, Dallenbach-Hellweg G, Ridder R, et al. Morphologic characteristics of p16INK4a-positive cells in cervical cytology samples. Acta Cytol 2004; 48: 771–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wang JL, Zheng BY, Li XD, et al. p16INK4A and p14ARF expression pattern by immunohistochemistry in human papillomavirus-related cervical neoplasia. Mod Pathol 2005 May; 18(5): 629–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sano T, Oyama T, Kashiwabara K, et al. Expression status of p16 protein is associated with human papillomavirus oncogenic potential in cervical and genital lesions. Am J Pathol 1998; 153: 1741–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Keating JT, Cviko A, Riethdorf S, et al. Ki-67, cyclin E, and p16INK4 are complimentary surrogate biomarkers for human papilloma virus-related cervical neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol 2001; 25: 884–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Quade BJ, Park JJ, Crum CP, et al. In vivo cyclin E expression as a marker for early cervical neoplasia. Mod Pathol 1998; 11: 1238–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Weaver EJ, Kovatich AJ, Bibbo M. Cyclin E expression and early cervical neoplasia in ThinPrep specimens: a feasibility study. Acta Cytol 2000; 44: 301–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Noya F, Chien WM, Broker TR, et al. p21cip1 degradation in differentiated keratinocytes is abrogated by costabilization with cyclin E induced by human papillomavirus E 7. J Virol 2001; 75: 6121–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Cameron RI, Maxwell P, Jenkins D, et al. Immunohistochemical staining with MIB1, bcl2 and p16 assists in the distinction of cervical glandular intraepithelial neoplasia from tubo-endometrial metaplasia, endometriosis and microglandular hyperplasia. Histopathology 2002; 41: 313–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Klaes R, Benner A, Friedrich T, et al. p16INK4a immunohistochemistry improves interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol 2002; 26: 1389–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kruse AJ, Baak JP, Janssen EA, et al. Ki67 predicts progression in early CIN: validation of a multivariate progression-risk model. Cell Oncol 2004; 26: 13–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kruse AJ, Buhr-Wildhagen S, Janssen EA, et al. The relationship between syntactic structure analysis features, histological grade and high-risk HPV DNA in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Cell Oncol 2004; 26: 135–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Murphy N, Ring M, Heffron CC, et al. Quantitation of CDC6 and MCM5 mRNA in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. Mod Pathol 2005; 18: 844–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kjaer SK, van den Brule AJ, Pauli G, et al. Type specific persistence of high risk human papillomavirus (HPV) as indicator of high grade cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions in young women: population based prospective follow up study. BMJ 2002; 325: 572–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lamarcq L, Deeds J, Ginzinger D, et al. Measurements of human papillomavirus transcripts by real time quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction in samples collected for cervical cancer screening. J Mol Diagn 2002; 4: 97–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Sotlar K, Selinka HC, Menton M, et al. Detection of human papillomavirus type 16 E6/E7 oncogene transcripts in dysplastic and nondysplastic cervical scrapes by nested RT-PCR. Gynecol Oncol 1998; 69: 114–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Wang-Johanning F, Lu DW, Wang Y, et al. Quantitation of human papillomavirus 16 E6 and E7 DNA and RNA in residual material from ThinPrep Papanicolaou tests using real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis. Cancer 2002; 94: 2199–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Molden T, Kraus I, Karlsen F, et al. Comparison of human papillomavirus messenger RNA and DNA detection: a cross-sectional study of 4136 women >30 years of age with a 2-year follow-up of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005; 14: 367–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Molden T, Nygard JF, Kraus I, et al. Predicting CIN2+ when detecting HPV mRNA and DNA by PreTect HPV-proofer and consensus PCR: a 2-year follow-up of women with ASCUS or LSIL pap smear. Int J Cancer 2005; 114: 973–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Klaes R, Woerner SM, Ridder R, et al. Detection of high-risk cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical cancer by amplification of transcripts derived from integrated papillomavirus oncogenes. Cancer Res 1999; 59: 6132–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Nagao S, Yoshinouchi M, Miyagi Y, et al. Rapid and sensitive detection of physical status of human papillomavirus type 16 DNA by quantitative real-time PCR. J Clin Microbiol 2002; 40: 863–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Chang CL, Wang SY, Wu CC, et al. Microsatellite alterations in exfoliated cervical epithelia deoxyribonucleic acid as a marker for high-grade dysplasia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185: 108–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Rha SH, Dong SM, Jen J, et al. Molecular detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical carcinoma by microsatellite analysis of Papanicolaou smears. Int J Cancer 2001; 93: 424–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Wang JL, Zheng BY, Li XD, et al. Predictive significance of the alterations of p16INK4A, p14ARF, p53, and proliferating cell nuclear antigen expression in the progression of cervical cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2004; 10: 2407–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Storey A, Thomas M, Kalita A, et al. Role of a p53 polymorphism in the development of human papillomavirus-associated cancer. Nature 1998; 393: 229–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Cenci M, French D, Pisani T, et al. p53 polymorphism at codon 72 is not a risk factor for cervical carcinogenesis in central Italy. Anticancer Res 2003; 23: 1385–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Malcolm EK, Baber GB, Boyd JC, et al. Polymorphism at codon 72 of p53 is not associated with cervical cancer risk. Mod Pathol 2000; 13: 373–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ojeda JM, Ampuero S, Rojas P, et al. p53 codon 72 polymorphism and risk of cervical cancer. Biol Res 2003; 36: 279–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Rosenthal AN, Ryan A, Al-Jehani RM, et al. p53 codon 72 polymorphism and risk of cervical cancer in UK. Lancet 1998; 352: 871–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Josefsson AM, Magnusson PK, Ylitalo N, et al. Viral load of human papilloma virus 16 as a determinant for development of cervical carcinoma in situ: a nested case-control study. Lancet 2000; 355: 2189–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Moberg M, Gustavsson I, Gyllensten U. Type-specific associations of human papillomavirus load with risk of developing cervical carcinoma in situ. Int J Cancer 2004; 112: 854–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Abba MC, Mouron SA, Gomez MA, et al. Association of human papillomavirus viral load with HPV16 and high-grade intraepithelial lesion. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2003; 13: 154–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Gravitt PE, Burk RD, Lorincz A, et al. A comparison between real-time polymerase chain reaction and hybrid capture 2 for human papillomavirus DNA quantitation. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003; 12: 477–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Zoodsma M, Nolte IM, Te Meerman GJ, et al. HLA genes and other candidate genes involved in susceptibility for (pre)neoplastic cervical disease. Int J Oncol 2005; 26: 769–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Stern PL. Immune control of human papillomavirus (HPV) associated anogenital disease and potential for vaccination. J Clin Virol 2005; 32 Suppl. 1: S72–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Grote HJ, Nguyen HV, Leick AG, et al. Identification of progressive cervical epithelial cell abnormalities using DNA image cytometry. Cancer 2004; 102: 373–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Terry G, Ho L, Londesborough P, et al. The role of human papillomavirus type 16 and the fragile histidine triad gene in the outcome of cervical neoplastic lesions. Br J Cancer 2004; 91: 2056–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Christensen ND. Emerging human papillomavirus vaccines. Expert Opin Emerg Drugs 2005; 10: 5–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Franco EL, Harper DM. Vaccination against human papillomavirus infection: a new paradigm in cervical cancer control. Vaccine 2005; 23: 2388–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Maclean J, Rybicki EP, Williamson AL. Vaccination strategies for the prevention of cervical cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2005; 5: 97–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Miller AB, Nazeer S, Fonn S, et al. Report on consensus conference on cervical cancer screening and management. Int J Cancer 2000; 86: 440–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute for Medical ResearchLondonUK
  2. 2.Specialist Virology CentreRoyal Infirmary of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations