Human Papillomavirus Antibodies Differ in Men and Women with Anal Cancer Garg R1,2, Carter JJ2, Johnson LG2, Schwartz SM1,2, Daling JR2, Madeleine MM1,2, Galloway DA1,21University of Washington and 2Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA USAINTRODUCTION Seropositivity for Several HPV Types and Associations with Anal Cancers
54% of cases were seropositive for HPV 16L1 antibodies vs 7% of controls. Among those with anal cancer
who were seropositive, the proportion of men exceeded women for 71% of HPVL1 types tested. Adjustment
for HPV 16L1 seropositivity negated all significant associations between anal cancer and HPV seropositivity
• Receptive anal intercourse• Number lifetime sex partners
CONTROLS(n=234) ANAL CANCER CASES(n=194) HPV Sero- Female Male Female Male
• YET—HPV stands out as independent risk factor Type positivity OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) 9.5 (4.5–20.0) 33.1 (12.4–88.2)
Significant portion anal cancers associated
5.5 (1.8–16.8) 20.9 (2.7–161.2) 5.6 (2.2–14.4)
Case-control study of anal cancer cases from population-basedUS cancer registry participating in NCI’s SEER Program
Residents of 3-county area, including Seattle, WA
Controls recruited through random-digit dialing and matched
Controls Squamous Cell Cancer 12.2 (1.5–96.4) (SCC) Anal Cases (n=194)
Blood samples—Luminex assay (GST fusion proteins)
(Detailed methods available upon request)17.1 (5.8–50.6) 38.9 (5.0–302.7) 2.8 (1.1–7.0) Demographics CONTROLS SCC ANAL CASES Female Male Female Male Risk of Anal Cancer Association with HPV Seropositivity by # of HPV Types Age: <40
There was little difference in the risk of anal cancer between women seropositive for 1 HPV type vs 2+ types
(0.23, Chi-square test for trend), but there was a trend towards
↑ risk of anal cancer among men seropositive
for 1 type vs. 2+ types (p<0.001). Race/Ethnicity White CONTROLS (n=234) ANAL CANCER CASES (n=194) # HPV Female Male Female Male Education: ≤ HS Types OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) 3.8 (1.7–8.5) 11.4 (4.7–27.7) Risk of In Situ vs Invasive Anal Cancer Association Sex Partners: 1 with HPV Seropositivity by # of HPV Types
There was a significant association between ↑ number of HPV types and ↑ risk of in situ, as well as invasive,
disease, among men; however, no such association was found among women. Sexual Behavior # HPV Controls In Situ Invasive Types OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) Receptive Anal Sex 7.0 (2.0–24.9) 2.8 (1.1–7.0) 27.1 (7.6–96.4) 6.4 (2.3–17.5) # HPV Controls In Situ Invasive Types OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) Seropositivity for Several HPV Types and Associations with In Situ vs Invasive Anal Cancer
Men with in situ cancer were more likely to be HPV 16L1 seropositive than men with invasive disease
Male Controls Female Controls
(p=0.004), whereas men with invasive cancer were more likely to be HPV 16E6 seropositive (p=0.009).
Similarly, women with invasive cancer were more likely to be HPV 16E6 seropositive (p=0.004). The
proportion of HPV 16L1 seropositive women was virtually the same among women with in situ (39%)
HPV Sero- Controls In Situ Invasive Type positivity OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) 78.6 (22.2–278.1) 18.2 (6.4–51.8) 19.5 (2.2–176.6) 49.9 (6.3–394.9) HPV Sero- Controls In Situ Invasive Type positivity OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) CONCLUSIONS 9.2 (3.4–24.9) 9.6 (4.4–21.1)
Seropositivity to HPV 16L1 and 16E6 was associated with anal cancer in both men and women.
Seropositivity to multiple oncogenic HPV types was associated with anal cancer in men only. 23.5 (7.9–70.4)
Women reporting 1 partner had a higher prevalence of HPV positivity than men, suggesting
a gender-based difference in exposure or immune response.
It is the philosophy and development strategy of SOMA Networks to comply with the most modern and complete standards. Through this promise, SOMA Networks delivers service providers a system unparalleled in its ability to deploy quickly, provide the best business case, grow with unmatched scalability and interoperate with a multitude of network, operational and application level systems.
Particle Size Analysis by Laser Diffraction Introduction 3. The scattering pattern at the detectors is the The underlying assumption in the design of laser sum of the individual scattering patterns diffraction instruments is that the scattered light pattern formed at the detector is a summation of the scattering pattern produced by each particle Experimental that is being sam