Cervical microbiota in women with cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia, prior to and after local excisional treatment, a Norwegian cohort study.
CIN
Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia
HPV
Human papillomavirus
LEEP
Lactobacillus
Vaginal microbiota
Journal
BMC women's health
ISSN: 1472-6874
Titre abrégé: BMC Womens Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088690
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 02 2019
06 02 2019
Historique:
received:
14
08
2018
accepted:
25
01
2019
entrez:
8
2
2019
pubmed:
8
2
2019
medline:
10
7
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Local treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) by Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure (LEEP) has been correlated with reproductive morbidity, while the cervicovaginal microbiota is also known to affect the risk of preterm delivery. CIN and treatment by LEEP might change the cervical microbiota. The main aim of this study was to describe the cervical microbiota before and after LEEP and assess its associaton with cone depth and HPV persistence. Further, we aimed to compare the microbiota to references with normal cervical cytology. Between 2005 and 2007, we prospectively identified 89 women planned for LEEP in a Norwegian hospital and recruited 100 references with a normal cervical cytology. Endocervical swabs were collected prior to treatment and at six (n = 77) and 12 months (n = 72) post LEEP for bacterial culture and PCR, and post LEEP for DNA testing for human papillomavirus (HPV). We compared the cervical microbiota composition before and after treatment and between women planned for LEEP vs references. There was a reduction in the number of non-Lactobacillus bacterial species six and 12 months after LEEP compared to before treatment and a tendency towards a concomitant increase in Lactobacillus. No association between the detection of cervical bacteria, HPV persistence or cone depth was found. Women planned for LEEP carried significantly more Bacteroides spp., Gardnerella vaginalis, Mycoplasma hominis and Ureaplasma parvum as well as a greater number of bacterial species than the references. Local excisional treatment appears to alter the cervical microbiota towards a less diverse microbiota. Women with CIN have a more diverse cervical microbiota compared to women with normal cervical cytology.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Local treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) by Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure (LEEP) has been correlated with reproductive morbidity, while the cervicovaginal microbiota is also known to affect the risk of preterm delivery. CIN and treatment by LEEP might change the cervical microbiota. The main aim of this study was to describe the cervical microbiota before and after LEEP and assess its associaton with cone depth and HPV persistence. Further, we aimed to compare the microbiota to references with normal cervical cytology.
METHODS
Between 2005 and 2007, we prospectively identified 89 women planned for LEEP in a Norwegian hospital and recruited 100 references with a normal cervical cytology. Endocervical swabs were collected prior to treatment and at six (n = 77) and 12 months (n = 72) post LEEP for bacterial culture and PCR, and post LEEP for DNA testing for human papillomavirus (HPV). We compared the cervical microbiota composition before and after treatment and between women planned for LEEP vs references.
RESULTS
There was a reduction in the number of non-Lactobacillus bacterial species six and 12 months after LEEP compared to before treatment and a tendency towards a concomitant increase in Lactobacillus. No association between the detection of cervical bacteria, HPV persistence or cone depth was found. Women planned for LEEP carried significantly more Bacteroides spp., Gardnerella vaginalis, Mycoplasma hominis and Ureaplasma parvum as well as a greater number of bacterial species than the references.
CONCLUSIONS
Local excisional treatment appears to alter the cervical microbiota towards a less diverse microbiota. Women with CIN have a more diverse cervical microbiota compared to women with normal cervical cytology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30728029
doi: 10.1186/s12905-019-0727-0
pii: 10.1186/s12905-019-0727-0
pmc: PMC6364458
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
30Références
Sci Rep. 2018 Mar 21;8(1):4923
pubmed: 29563617
Int J STD AIDS. 2012 Aug;23(8):581-4
pubmed: 22930296
Lancet. 2001 Feb 17;357(9255):539-45
pubmed: 11229684
J Clin Microbiol. 2009 Aug;47(8):2458-64
pubmed: 19535524
BJOG. 2015 Mar;122(4):545-51
pubmed: 25515321
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86(4):423-8
pubmed: 17486463
Microbiome. 2016 Nov 1;4(1):58
pubmed: 27802830
Transl Res. 2017 Jan;179:168-182
pubmed: 27477083
Sci Transl Med. 2012 May 2;4(132):132ra52
pubmed: 22553250
BMC Infect Dis. 2011 Jan 11;11:10
pubmed: 21223574
Am J Clin Pathol. 2011 Aug;136(2):260-5
pubmed: 21757599
PLoS One. 2013 May 22;8(5):e63514
pubmed: 23717441
Science. 2014 Aug 15;345(6198):760-5
pubmed: 25124429
J Microbiol Methods. 2005 Jan;60(1):13-9
pubmed: 15567220
J Infect Dis. 2006 Feb 15;193(4):556-62
pubmed: 16425135
J Clin Microbiol. 2006 Jan;44(1):51-5
pubmed: 16390947
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Mar 15;108 Suppl 1:4680-7
pubmed: 20534435
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011 May;90(5):510-5
pubmed: 21306340
BJOG. 2012 May;119(6):685-91
pubmed: 22329499
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015 Jul;21(7):674.e1-9
pubmed: 25752224
N Engl J Med. 2000 May 18;342(20):1500-7
pubmed: 10816189
Sci Rep. 2015 Nov 17;5:16865
pubmed: 26574055
BMC Microbiol. 2004 Sep 06;4:35
pubmed: 15350196
Diagn Cytopathol. 2016 Feb;44(2):80-6
pubmed: 26644228
BMJ. 2016 Jul 28;354:i3633
pubmed: 27469988
Lancet. 2006 Feb 11;367(9509):489-98
pubmed: 16473126
BJOG. 2007 Jan;114(1):70-80
pubmed: 17083653
Lancet. 2008 Jan 5;371(9606):75-84
pubmed: 18177778
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2003;(31):29-34
pubmed: 12807942