Table 1.
Clinical details of patients included in the study
| Cervical HPV-16 infection status | CIN status | Patient ID | Age | Cervical HPV types detected (Roche Linear Array Assay) | HPV-16 VLP serum IgG response1 | HPV-16 VLP IgG level of recognition (OD492nm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HPV-16 DNA Positive | CIN 0 | 47 | 45 | 16, 69, 83 | − | 0·085 |
| 88 | 22 | 11, 16, 18, 35, 42, 55 | − | 0·328 | ||
| 58 | 30 | 16 | + | 1·357 | ||
| CIN 2/3 | 49 | 35 | 16, 18, 35, 45, 52, 70 | − | 0·251 | |
| 55 | 42 | 16 | − | 0·203 | ||
| 11 | 28 | 16 | + | 0·860 | ||
| 17 | 36 | 16 | + | 1·623 | ||
| 43 | 38 | 16, 33 | + | 0·804 | ||
| 48 | 38 | 16, 18, 31, 53, 56 | + | 0·714 | ||
| HPV-16 DNA Negative | CIN 0 | 34 | 28 | 51 | − | 0·474 |
| 35 | 25 | 26, 73 | − | 0·515 | ||
| 1 | 50 | 33 | + | 1·620 | ||
| 10 | 25 | 51 | + | 2·062 | ||
| 18 | 24 | 6, 33 | + | 1·432 | ||
| 28 | 34 | 45 | + | 1·040 | ||
| 41 | 41 | 35 | + | 1·570 | ||
| 45 | 29 | None2 | + | 0·918 | ||
| 61 | 28 | 33, 52, 68 | + | 1·204 | ||
| CIN 1 | 7 | 37 | None | − | 0·274 | |
| 89 | 35 | 35, 62 | − | 0·530 | ||
| 13 | 23 | 53, 51, 39 | + | 1·700 | ||
| 33 | 38 | 59 | + | 1·526 | ||
| 84 | 40 | 56 | + | 0·846 | ||
| 91 | 36 | 51, 53, 54, 59, 68 | + | 1·056 | ||
| CIN 2/3 | 8 | 42 | 68 | − | 0·131 | |
| 60 | 31 | 35 | − | 0·356 | ||
| 62 | 35 | 35 | − | 0·394 | ||
| 5 | 42 | 52 | − | 0·151 | ||
| 29 | 31 | 18, 35, 39 | − | 0·234 | ||
| 14 | 52 | 35 | − | 0·754 | ||
| 2 | 49 | 73 | + | 0·690 | ||
| 66 | 34 | 31, 33 | + | 1·472 | ||
| 68 | 34 | None | + | 0·974 |
1
Cut-off values for serum IgG positivity = 0·54. Cut-off levels for HPV-16 VLP sero-positivity were calculated using the mean OD492nm value of children controls (minus outliers) plus 2 standard deviations13.
2
None of the 37 types probed using the Roche Assay were detected.