Luciana Silva Aguiar

Simultaneous Chlamydia trachomatis and HPV infection in pregnant women.

Pregnancy is associated with HPV infection and with Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) infection mostly due to the natural immunosuppression. In addition, pregnancy associated to CT infection can lead to adverse conditions to the woman and fetus, and CT is also believed to be a co‐factor in human immunodeficiency virus infection and HPV‐induced cervical cancer. The aim of this study was to establish the odds ratios (OR) of CT infection in to HPV‐infected pregnant women and vice versa of women stratified by age (<25 years) and marital status. This work is part of a national multicentric transversal study carried out in six Brazilian cities supported by the Ministry of Health of Federal Government of Brazil in 2003. Cervical scrapes of 371 pregnant women were sampled. We performed a hybrid capture‐2 technique to diagnose these samples on HPV and CT infection, and the women responded a questionnaire. Significant association was observed between nonstable marital status and hr‐HPV infection [OR = 2.61 (1.38–4.97) P = 0.003)], and age <25 years old [OR = 2.26 (1.09–4.71) P = 0.029]. Nonstable marital status was also associated with lr‐HPV infection [OR = 2.67 (1.59–4.50) P < 0.001), and age <25 years old [OR = 2.55 (1.51–4.32) P < 0.001). Fifty of the 371 pregnant women were infected with hr‐HPV (13.5%) and 111 (30.0%) were infected with lr‐HPV. The coinfections of HPV and CT were found in 31 women, that is, 8.36% of the pregnant women (P < 0.001). The high rate of simultaneous CT and HPV infection in pregnant women favors the recommendation to screen pregnant women for both CT and HPV. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2010.

HPV-11 associated metastatic cervical cancer.

► An HPV 11 positive ICC was detected. ► Infection by other HR types was ruled out. ► The same genotype was found in a metastatic lesion.

Avaliação crítica das nomenclaturas diagnósticas dos exames citopatológicos cervicais utilizadas no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS)

PURPOSE: to identify the nomenclature for reporting cervical cytological diagnoses used by laboratories which render services to the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) and which participate in External Quality Monitoring (MEQ). To evaluate the information acquired from gynecologists of the SUS regarding the various diagnostic classifications that they receive in the cervical cytology diagnostic reports. METHODS: we evaluated 94 cytology reports issued by laboratories which participate in the MEQ in the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, and 126 questionnaires applied to gynecologists who work for the SUS. RESULTS: out of the 94 laboratories, 81 (86.2%) use one diagnostic classification: 79 (97.6%) use the Brazilian Nomenclature for Cytological Reports (NBLC), 1 (1.2%) uses the Papanicolaou classification and 1 (1.2%) uses the Richart diagnostic classification. Of the 13 (13.8%) laboratories that use more than one classification, 5 use 2 types and 8 use 3 to 4 types, with 9 including the Papanicolau diagnostic classification. The study showed that 52 (55.3%) laboratories presented more than one descriptive diagnosis in the same report. Out of the 126 gynecologists who filled out a questionnaire evaluating the cytopathology reports, 78 (61.9 %) stated that they received laboratory reports with only one diagnostic classification, 48 (38.1%) received reports with more than one classification and 2 received reports with all 4 classifications. Among the 93 (73.8%) gynecologists who prefer only one classification, 56 (60.2%) claimed that the NBLC contributes to clinical practice, 13 (14.0%) opted for the Richart classification, 8 (8.6%) for the Reagan classification and 16 (17.2%) for the Papanicolaou classification. Out of 33 (26.2%) gynecologists who prefer more than one classification, 5 opted for the 4 classifications. CONCLUSIONS: these data suggest that there is still resistance on the part of pathologists about using the official nomenclature in cytology reports for SUS. There is discrepancy between the information that gynecologists would like to see in the reports and the information provided by the pathologists. Greater efforts should be made to stimulate the use of the official nomenclature.