Navegando por Palavras-chave "proteína p16"

Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
  • Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
    Item
    Somente Metadadados
    Expressão imuno-histoquímica da proteína p16 e genotipagem de papilomavirus humano em lesões intraepiteliais escamosas de alto grau ou mais de colo uterino em mulheres indígenas do Parque Indígena do Xingu - Mato Grosso / Brasil
    (Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), 2013-10-30) Freitas, Valeria Grisolia de [UNIFESP]; Speck, Neila Maria de Gois Speck [UNIFESP]; Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
    Rationale: There are few epidemiologic studies on cervical cancer and human papillomavirus infection (HPV) in indigenous populations. Evaluating the most prevalent viral types and using new markers can be very helpful to make decisions about cervical cancer prevention in specific populations. Objectives: To evaluate the presence of specific HPV types in female indigenous patients from the Xingu Indigenous Park (PIX, acronym in Portuguese) with histological diagnosis of high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesion. To evaluate p16 protein expression in high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions in female indigenous patients from the PIX, with histological diagnosis of high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesion. To correlate the p16 protein immunohistochemical expression with analysis of several types of HPV to assess possible differences in immunoexpression of the marker. Methods: The study evaluated 37 samples of cervix of indigenous women from the PIX with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions diagnosed upon cytology, histology and colposcopy. HPV genotyping was performed by reverse hybridization and p16 protein expression was investigated by immunohistochemical reaction. Results: Thirteen different types of HPV were found in genotyping; in that, two were low-risk (HPV 11 and HPV 44), two possibly high-risk (HPV 26 and HPV 53) and the remaining were considered high-oncogenic-risk, predominating HPV 52, followed by HPV 16, but with no statistically significant difference. The several viral types presented as single or multiple infections, and the comparison between genotyping and type of infection was statistically significant. There was more single infection in the most prevalent genotypes. The statistical analysis of p16 protein immunoexpression confirmed the proportional predominance of diffuse expression. There was no statistically significant difference when comparing HPV genotyping and p16 protein expression. Conclusions: Based on the results, it was concluded that HPV 52 and HPV 16 are the most prevalent types of HPV in high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions in indigenous women from the PIX. The expression of p16 protein in high-grade cervical intraepithelial lesions was predominantly diffuse and was not influenced by the viral type identified.