The Impact of High-Risk HPV Genotypes Other Than HPV 16/18 on the Natural Course of Abnormal Cervical Cytology: A Korean HPV Cohort Study.

doi:10.4143/crt.2016.013

Loading publication...

Noodle always counts identifier-free feature events for service operation. With your permission, Google Analytics can also estimate audience and engagement. Search text, publication identifiers, cookies, IP addresses and browser fingerprints are never included in Noodle's first-party event counters.

Privacy details

Back to search

Article

The Impact of High-Risk HPV Genotypes Other Than HPV 16/18 on the Natural Course of Abnormal Cervical Cytology: A Korean HPV Cohort Study.

Cancer research and treatment - 1 Oct 2016

So Kyeong A, Kim Mi Jung, Lee Ki-Heon, Lee In-Ho, Kim Mi Kyung, Lee Yoo Kyung, Hwang Chang-Sun, Jeong Mi Seon, Kee Mee-Kyung, Kang Chun, Cho Chi Heum, Kim Seok Mo, Hong Sung Ran, Kim Ki Tae, Lee Won-Chul, Park Jong Sup, Kim Tae Jin

Abstract excerpt

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of high-risk human papillomaviruses (HPVs) other than HPV 16/18 on the natural course of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population was derived from the Korean HPV cohort (2010-2014). Women aged 20 to 60 who satisfied the criteria of...

Topics

Adult
Cytodiagnosis
Female
Genotype
Human papillomavirus 16
Human papillomavirus 18
Humans
Middle Aged
Papillomaviridae
Papillomavirus Infections

Methodology Data sources Editorial policy Privacy About Contact Helena Bioinformatics

Pregnancy

Risk Factors

Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions of the Cervix

Uterine Cervical Dysplasia

Source

Open in PubMed Open full text

Identifiers

PMID: 26987394
DOI: 10.4143/crt.2016.013
PMCID: PMC5080822

Provenance

PubMed metadata and Literature Corpus relationships. Corpus snapshot updated 30 Aug 2026.

Community interpretation

Discuss the evidence

Ask a question, add context or challenge an interpretation. Community activity is separate from scientific evidence strength.

discussions

replies

Citations encouraged

Claims remain attributable.

No discussion yet

Be the first to add a careful, cited interpretation.