Cigarette Smoking, Oncogenic Human Papillomavirus, Ki-67 Antigen, and Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia

Tiffany G. Harris1, Shalini L. Kulasingam2, Nancy B. Kiviat3, Constance Mao4, S. Nicholas Agoff3, Qinghua Feng3 and Laura A. Koutsky1 

1 Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, NC.
3 Department of Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Received for publication March 31, 2003; accepted for publication November 25, 2003.


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Although cigarette smoking has been identified as a cofactor for cervical neoplasia, it is not clear whether smoking exerts an early or late effect on the evolution of human papillomavirus (HPV)-related lesions. A case-control study of Washington State women who presented for routine gynecologic care from 1997 to 2001 was conducted. All women underwent cytologic testing and HPV DNA screening. Those with abnormal cytology findings or a positive oncogenic HPV test and a random sample of women negative on both tests were referred for colposcopically directed cervical biopsy with repeated testing. Among 461 women with oncogenic HPV were 181 controls with negative histology, 137 cases with histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 1 (CIN1), and 143 cases with histologically confirmed CIN grades 2–3 or higher (>=CIN2–3). Smoking information was obtained by questionnaire. Immunohistochemistry testing for Ki-67 was performed on a subset of biopsy specimens (n = 139). Smoking 10 or more cigarettes per day was associated with >=CIN2–3 (adjusted odds ratio = 2.6, 95% confidence interval: 1.3, 5.5) and CIN1 (adjusted odds ratio = 2.5, 95% confidence interval: 1.2, 5.3). Heavy smoking was positively associated with Ki-67 but not with repeated detection of oncogenic HPV. Since smoking was associated with both CIN1 and >=CIN2–3, cigarette by-products may affect the early evolution of HPV-related lesions, possibly by increasing the rate of cell turnover.

case-control studies; cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; cervix uteri; female; Ki-67 antigen; papillomavirus, human; smoking; tobacco smoke pollution

Abbreviations: Abbreviations: aOR, adjusted odds ratio; ASC-US, atypical squamous cells of uncertain significance; CI, confidence interval; CIN, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; HPV, human papillomavirus; OR, odds ratio.


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a causal factor in the development of cervical cancer and its precursor lesion, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) (1). However, only a small fraction of the women infected with HPV go on to develop cervical cancer, indicating that one or more cofactors are involved.

Understanding what factors other than HPV play a role in cervical cancer development is important. If exposures other than HPV infection, especially modifiable exposures, are significant in precancerous lesion development, women can be educated as to the risk associated with these exposures. This information is also important in the future application of HPV DNA testing to cervical cancer screening. If HPV DNA testing is implemented, it will be important to identify the subset of HPV-positive women that is at greatest risk of having a high-grade precancerous lesion, since HPV testing has significantly lower specificity than does cytology (2). Such women might be triaged immediately to colposcopy and biopsy versus follow-up by repeated cytology or HPV testing. Additionally, in resource-poor settings where HPV testing may be the only cervical cancer screening method available, the identification of those at greatest risk is important in allocating limited resources.

Few studies have considered risk factors for cervical disease among HPV DNA-positive women (39). Some (35, 79) but not all (6) previous studies of women with HPV infection found smoking to be positively associated with cervical disease. None of the previous studies, however, used the same methods to verify the disease status of all women, and only two studies (4, 8) restricted all women to those with oncogenic HPV infection. The aim of this study was to examine the relation between smoking and CIN among oncogenic HPV DNA-positive women. To limit potential bias, we defined all outcome groups in the same manner, included histologically negative women who at screening were oncogenic HPV DNA positive, and drew our cases and controls from women presenting for routine cytologic screening. Additionally, we performed Ki-67 (a marker for proliferation/metaplasia) immunohistochemistry testing on transformation zone biopsy samples from a subset of women.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Study subjects and data collection
The University of Washington Human Subjects Division approved all protocols, consent forms, and questionnaires. Women who presented from December 1997 through December 2001 for routine gynecologic care at three Planned Parenthood of Western Washington clinics and women who responded to advertising and sought study participation from August 2001 through January 2002 at the Harborview Medical Center Women’s Research Clinic (Seattle, Washington) were eligible for cytologic and HPV DNA screening with the study if they met the following criteria: 18–50 years of age; no history of treatment for cervical neoplasia (i.e., no electrocautery, cryocautery, conization, laser surgery, loop electrosurgical excision procedure, or hysterectomy); not planning to continue a current pregnancy; and not immunocompromised (e.g., human immunodeficiency virus positive) (2). After providing written, informed consent, study participants completed a one-page questionnaire that included demographic, reproductive, and sexual history questions. A clinician then performed the pelvic examination. During this examination, a cervical specimen was collected using a cytobrush and a plastic spatula and placed into a vial containing PreservCyt (Cytyc Corporation, Boxborough, Massachusetts) for thin-layer cytology (Cytyc Corporation). A Dacron (E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, Delaware)-tipped swab sample from the endo- and ectocervix was obtained and placed in specimen transport medium (STM; Digene Corporation, Gaithersburg, Maryland) for HPV DNA testing by polymerase chain reaction-based assay.

Women with 1) atypical squamous cells of uncertain significance (ASC-US) and low-grade or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions on cytology and 2) negative cytology and a positive oncogenic HPV DNA test, as well as 3) a random sample of women with negative cytology and negative HPV DNA test results, were contacted and offered colposcopy and biopsy with the study.

After written, informed consent was obtained at the colposcopy-biopsy study visit, personnel administered a detailed questionnaire regarding demographic, reproductive/gynecologic, sexual history, smoking, and general medical information to participants. A pelvic examination was performed, and cervical specimens were collected as described for the screening visit. A colposcopic examination of the cervix was performed, and punch biopsies were taken from the most abnormal appearing areas or at the 12 o’clock position if no abnormal areas were seen. Women with lesions that extended into the endocervical canal or women with squamous intraepithelial lesions on screening cytology and no colposcopically visible lesions also underwent endocervical curettage. Biopsy and endocervical curettage specimens were placed in formalin.

Women with negative results or low-grade disease (atypia or CIN1) were referred back to their regular provider for follow-up and treatment if necessary. Women with high-grade disease (>=CIN2–3) were advised of the indication for treatment and offered a loop electrosurgical excision procedure by a study clinician. Women with cancer were referred to a gynecologic oncologist for staging and appropriate treatment of their cancer. At the clinician’s discretion (e.g., high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cytology and negative histology), 33 women were referred for repeated colposcopies, biopsies, and/or endocervical curettages. HPV testing was not performed at these repeated visits.

HPV DNA detection
HPV DNA processing and testing were performed at the HPV DNA Laboratory at Harborview Medical Center (Seattle, Washington). First, the cervical swab sample was digested with protease, and the DNA was precipitated with ethanol. Then the HPV L1 consensus primer (MY09/MY11 and HMB01) polymerase chain reaction amplification assay and a Roche reverse line blot hybridization (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Alameda, California) were used for amplification and typing of HPV DNA. This system allowed for the detection and typing of HPV types 16, 18, 26, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 55, 56, 58, 59, 68, 73, 82, and 83 (oncogenic) and HPV types 6, 11, 40, 42, 53, 54, 57, 66, and 84 (nononcogenic). Over 40 HPV types have been found in the anogenital mucosa, including the following uncharacterized types: 61, 62, 64, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 81, CP6108, and IS39, which were not included this system (10). The primers PC04 and GH20 were used for beta-globin detection (11). The process used one fiftieth of the original 1-ml sample for amplification by polymerase chain reaction.

Cytology and histology
All cytology and histology samples were processed and reviewed at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, Washington. Cytology slides were stained with the Papanicolaou stain, screened by a cytotechnologist, and reviewed by pathologists without knowledge of colposcopy or HPV DNA results. Cytologic findings were recorded in terms of the Bethesda System classification (12). When more than 60 percent of the slide target area was without epithelial cells, the sample was considered to be unsatisfactory. A random 10 percent sample of all slides read out as negative was rescreened manually as mandated by federal law (13). All biopsies and endocervical curettages were classified as negative, atypia, CIN1, CIN2, CIN3, carcinoma in situ, adenocarcinoma in situ, microinvasive cancer, or invasive cancer.

Ki-67 antigen detection
Immunohistochemistry testing for Ki-67 antigen (a proliferation antigen associated with epithelial metaplasia and dysplasia) was performed on a consecutive series of the CIN1 and >=CIN2–3 cases and on a random subset of negative cases (n = 139) (14). Sections of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues 4 µm in size were deparaffinized and rehydrated through graded alcohols. Immunohistochemistry testing for Ki-67 (MIB-1 clone at 1:50 dilution; DAKO Corporation, Carpenteria, California) was then performed using a modified avidin-biotin complex immunoperoxidase technique according to standard protocols with heat-induced epitope retrieval and 3,3'-diaminobenzidine as a chromogen with nickel chloride enhancement (15). The degree of Ki-67 staining was recorded as low (positive signal in the lower one third of the epithelium, generally confined to the basal layer of the epithelium) or intermediate to high (positive signal detected in the middle one third and/or upper one third of the epithelium) (16).

Statistical analysis
The analysis was restricted to women who were positive for an oncogenic HPV type at screening and who received a follow-up colposcopy and biopsy that were satisfactory for evaluation at the time of the analysis (n = 629). Prior to analysis, one control group and two case groups were defined on the basis of the most severe histologic diagnosis from any of the biopsy visits. Only five women received a more severe diagnosis at a second visit (median time between visits: 3 months; range: 1–6 months). The control group was composed of women with a negative histology diagnosis and negative or ASC-US Papanicolaou smears (one woman had a Papanicolaou smear diagnosis of atypical endocervical cells, favor reactive) at both the screening and colposcopy-biopsy visits (n = 181). The first case group was composed of women with normal or abnormal (>=ASC-US) Papanicolaou smears and a histologic diagnosis of CIN1 (n = 137). The second case group was composed of women with normal or abnormal (>=ASC-US) Papanicolaou smears and a histologic diagnosis of >=CIN2–3 (n = 143). In a subanalysis, 53 women with CIN2 and 90 women with >=CIN3 were included as separate groups. There were no cases of invasive carcinoma diagnosed at biopsy or endocervical curettage. Two women with a biopsy diagnosis of carcinoma in situ were found to have invasive carcinoma in the loop electrosurgical excision procedure specimen. Overall, 36 percent of the 501 women with negative histology and <=ASC-US cytology, 67 percent of the 204 women with CIN1, and 86 percent of the 167 women with >=CIN2–3 were positive for oncogenic HPV DNA and were included in the analysis. Because there were two case groups, multinomial (polytomous) logistic regression was used. Stata 7 (STATA Corporation, College Station, Texas) software was used for all analyses (17).

Smoking history, which was ascertained from the colposcopy-biopsy visit questionnaire, was analyzed using the following three definitions: smoking status (never (never smoked at the time of the colposcopy-biopsy visit), former (quit smoking prior to the colposcopy-biopsy visit), current (smoked at the time of the colposcopy-biopsy visit)); pack-years of exposure (0, <=5, >5 pack-years); and number of cigarettes per day (never smokers or those who quit smoking more than 2 years prior to the colposcopy-biopsy visit (0 cigarettes/day), 1–10, >10). Additionally, to evaluate whether those who recently quit smoking were at an increased risk of CIN1 or >=CIN2–3 compared with never smokers, we placed those who quit smoking 2 years or less before their colposcopy-biopsy visit into a separate group. Those who smoked 0.1 pack-year or less were classified as nonsmokers for all analyses.

The following covariates were evaluated as possible confounders: age at biopsy (continuous and 18–19, 20–24, 25–29, 30–50 years), screening clinic, education (<12th grade, >=12th grade), race/ethnicity (White, Black, other), Papanicolaou screening history (number in past 5 years, history, and number of abnormal Papanicolaou smears), current use of hormonal birth control (yes/no), number of male partners (continuous), parity (0, 1, >=2 births), self-reported history of sexually transmitted diseases (Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, cervicitis), clinician assessment of ectopy at the colposcopy-biopsy visit (0–9, 10–19, 20–29, >=30 percent, missing), and HPV DNA test results (number of oncogenic types and positivity for the same oncogenic HPV type at both visits). The presence of confounding was assessed using the following criteria as a guideline: change of greater than 10 percent in the odds ratio of the smoking history variable when the potential confounder was added to the univariate model and/or significant change in the log likelihood.

To avoid misclassification of case and control status, women were excluded from analysis if they had a final histologic diagnosis of negative and unsatisfactory cytology at either visit (n = 10), squamous intraepithelial lesions on cytology and a final histologic diagnosis of negative (n = 71), or a final histologic diagnosis of atypia (n = 77). To avoid misclassification of exposure status, women were excluded from analysis if they had incomplete smoking information (n = 1) or if their colposcopy-biopsy visit HPV DNA specimen was insufficient for testing (n = 9).


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The oncogenic HPV DNA-positive women who attended the colposcopy-biopsy visit were similar to the entire population screened except, as anticipated, women with oncogenic HPV DNA had an increased lifetime number of male partners (data not shown). Overall, 97 percent of the oncogenic HPV DNA-positive women were from a Planned Parenthood clinic, and 3 percent were from the Harborview Medical Center Women’s Research Clinic; this distribution is similar to that of the entire study population. In the population of oncogenic HPV DNA-positive women, a history of an abnormal Papanicolaou smear was reported more frequently by women with >=CIN2–3 than by those with negative histology findings (table 1). The percentage of ectopy found on clinical examination, being infected with the same oncogenic HPV type at both the screening and colposcopy-biopsy visits, and the number of oncogenic HPV types detected at the colposcopy-biopsy visit were higher for those with CIN than those with negative histology findings. The following factors were found to be confounders in the relation between smoking and histologic outcome and were included in the final models: age (continuous), number of oncogenic HPV types, and percentage of ectopy.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1. Distribution of demographic, gynecologic, sexual behavior, and human papillomavirus factors ascertained at the colposcopy-biopsy visit for negative, CIN1,* and >=CIN2–3* histologic outcome groups, Planned Parenthood of Western Washington and Harborview Medical Center Women’s Research Clinic, December 1997–December 2001
 
At the screening visit, 41 (23 percent), 30 (22 percent), and 76 (53 percent) of the negative, CIN1, and >=CIN2–3 subjects, respectively, were positive for HPV type 16. The next most common was HPV type 52, which was detected in 14 percent, 13 percent, and 13 percent of the negative, CIN1, and >=CIN2–3 subjects, respectively. All other oncogenic types were found in 13 percent or less of the subjects in each group. In the whole study population, 72 subjects (16 percent) who were positive for an oncogenic type at screening were also positive for a nononcogenic type.

There was a median of 54 days between the screening visit and the colposcopy-biopsy visit. Of the 461 subjects who were initially positive for oncogenic HPV DNA at screening at the colposcopy-biopsy visit, 316 (68 percent) were repeatedly positive for the same type of oncogenic HPV DNA, 31 (7 percent) were positive for a different type of oncogenic HPV DNA, and 114 (25 percent) were negative for oncogenic HPV DNA. At the colposcopy-biopsy visit, 33 (18 percent), 29 (21 percent), and 71 (50 percent) of the negative, CIN1, and >=CIN2–3 subjects, respectively, were positive for HPV type 16 DNA; 118 (80 percent) of the 147 women with HPV type 16 DNA detected at screening were positive for HPV type 16 DNA at the colposcopy-biopsy visit.

Women with CIN1 were more likely than women with negative histology findings to be current as opposed to never smokers (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.8, 95 percent confidence interval (CI): 1.1, 3.1) (table 2). Similarly, women with >=CIN2–3 were more likely than those with negative histology findings to be current smokers (aOR = 1.6, 95 percent CI: 1.0, 2.7). Compared with never smokers, women who had quit smoking less than 2 years earlier were at increased risk of >=CIN2–3 (aOR = 2.2, 95 percent CI: 1.0, 5.2). The risk was not appreciably elevated among women who quit smoking more than 2 years ago (aOR = 1.3, 95 percent CI: 0.4, 4.9).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 2. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the associations between smoking history and CIN1* and between smoking history and >=CIN2–3,* Planned Parenthood of Western Washington and Harborview Medical Center Women’s Research Clinic, December 1997–December 2001
 
Compared with women who were never smokers, those with more than 5 pack-years of exposure were more likely to have CIN1 (aOR = 2.1, 95 percent CI: 1.0, 4.5) or to have >=CIN2–3 (aOR = 2.6, 95 percent CI: 1.3, 5.2) (table 2). The report of smoking more than 10 cigarettes per day was associated with >=CIN2–3 (aOR = 2.6, 95 percent CI: 1.3, 5.5) and with CIN1 (aOR = 2.5, 95 percent CI: 1.2, 5.3). The odds ratio for 1–10 cigarettes per day compared with never smokers was slightly elevated and identical for CIN1 (aOR = 1.4, 95 percent CI: 0.9, 2.5) and >=CIN2–3 (aOR = 1.4, 95 percent CI: 0.8, 2.4).

When the analysis of each smoking variable was restricted to HPV type 16-positive women, the strength of the associations increased; however, because of small numbers, the width of the confidence intervals increased (data not shown). The analysis was also performed combining CIN1 and >=CIN2–3 and, finally, separately for CIN2 and CIN3. For the combined analysis, the risk estimates were between those of the two separate categories (data not shown). When the CIN2 and the CIN3 were separated, the risk estimates for CIN2 and CIN3 were similar (data not shown). A stratified analysis was performed to determine the extent to which the risk of CIN could be explained by an interaction between number of cigarettes per day and HPV type-specific repeated positivity (table 3). There was no clear evidence for interaction on a multiplicative scale.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 3. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association between cigarettes per day and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia stratified by type-specific repeated human papillomavirus DNA positivity, Planned Parenthood of Western Washington and Harborview Medical Center Women’s Research Clinic, December 1997–December 2001
 
To further explore the relation between smoking and detection of oncogenic HPV DNA, we performed four additional analyses. First, when 108 women with negative test results for HPV DNA, cytology, and histology were compared with 142 women with positive test results for oncogenic HPV DNA and negative results for cytology and histology, detection of oncogenic HPV DNA was not associated with smoking more than 10 cigarettes per day (odds ratio (OR) = 0.9, 95 percent CI: 0.4, 2.1). Second, among women with oncogenic HPV DNA, smoking more than 10 cigarettes per day was not positively associated with repeated detection of the same type of HPV DNA (aOR = 0.6, 95 percent CI: 0.3, 1.1) (table 4). Third, among women who were positive for oncogenic HPV DNA, smoking more than 10 cigarettes per day was negatively associated with the number of HPV types detected at the colposcopy-biopsy visit (0 vs. >=2 types: aOR = 0.3, 95 percent CI: 0.1, 0.8). Finally, we found that, among women with oncogenic HPV DNA, the relation between number of cigarettes per day and intermediate- to high-level expression of Ki-67 exhibited a positive dose-response relation (table 5; {chi}2 test for trend: p = 0.055).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 4. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association between cigarettes per day and type-specific repeated human papillomavirus positivity, Planned Parenthood of Western Washington and Harborview Medical Center Women’s Research Clinic, December 1997–December 2001
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 5. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association between cigarettes per day and degree of Ki-67 antigen staining, Planned Parenthood of Western Washington and Harborview Medical Center Women’s Research Clinic, December 1997–December 2001
 

    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Among women with oncogenic HPV infection, smoking was associated with both CIN1 and >=CIN2–3. Of the three smoking measures (smoking status, pack-years of exposure, number of cigarettes per day), number of cigarettes per day (>10 cigarettes) was most strongly associated with CIN1 and >=CIN2–3. The association between cigarettes and CIN did not appear to be mediated by an immunologic response that could be measured as 1) presence versus absence of oncogenic HPV infection, 2) number of HPV types detected, or 3) repeated detection of the same oncogenic HPV type. Our findings did suggest, however, that the association between smoking and CIN might be mediated through an effect of cigarette smoke on cell proliferation/metaplasia as measured by Ki-67 staining of the cervical transformation zone epithelium.

An association between smoking and CIN among women with HPV infection has been reported in some previous (35, 79), but not all (6), studies. Our results for >=CIN2–3 are similar to those reported for one of the two other studies that restricted cases and controls to include only women who were oncogenic HPV DNA positive (8), and our results were slightly lower than those reported in the other study (4). We found a similar association with smoking for both CIN1 and >=CIN2–3. This is in contrast to results reported by Ho et al. (5), who found that various smoking measures were positively associated with CIN2 (smokers of >10 cigarettes per day vs. never/former smokers: OR = 1.38, 95 percent CI: 0.42, 4.54) and CIN3 (smokers of >10 cigarettes per day vs. never/former smokers: OR = 3.35, 95 percent CI: 1.22, 9.15) cases when compared with CIN1 cases. The difference in results between the study by Ho et al. and the present study could be due in part to the fact that 34 percent of subjects with CIN1 in their study were positive only for nononcogenic HPV DNA, whereas in our study, all subjects with CIN1 were positive for oncogenic HPV DNA.

Other studies that assessed more than one type of smoking measure have also found the strongest associations with cigarettes per day (5, 8). Investigators who studied the distribution of Ki-67 staining in the lung found that Ki-67 did not correlate with pack-years or smoke-years, but it did correlate with packs per day (18).

One limitation of this analysis is the potential decreased accuracy of self-reported smoking history. However, there is no reason to suspect that women with CIN would be more likely than women without to report inaccurate smoking histories, since smoking history was obtained prior to biopsy. Patrick et al. (19) found that, compared with biochemical validation, self-report of smoking status had high sensitivity and specificity.

There are several strengths of the current analysis. All three outcome groups, which included a negative group, were diagnosed in the same manner, by cytology and histology. The negative group was required to have negative and/or ASC-US cytology findings at both the screening and colposcopy-biopsy visits to limit misclassification. Other studies have used a negative control group that was determined only by cytology findings and a case group that was determined by histology findings (6, 9), or they used a control group that was not composed of women with negative diagnoses (5, 7). Another strength is that this is not a referral population; the majority of both cases and controls were from the same clinic population presenting for routine annual examinations. If the cases had been selected from only women who were referred for colposcopy and biopsy on the basis of an abnormal Papanicolaou smear, 36 (25 percent) of the >=CIN2–3 cases would have been missed. Furthermore, this is the first study to evaluate whether the smoking effect could be explained by an association with repeated detection of oncogenic HPV DNA, detection of infection by more than one oncogenic HPV type, or evidence of proliferation/metaplasia, as measured by Ki-67 staining of the transformation zone epithelium.

A possible mechanism for the relation between smoking and CIN among women positive for oncogenic HPV is that smoking weakens the immune response to HPV infection, allowing the virus to persist for a longer period of time (20). However, previous studies found a significant negative association between smoking and repeated oncogenic HPV DNA positivity, and this association was greater for current versus former smokers and for heavier versus lighter smokers (21, 22). Our stratified analysis also showed a nonsignificant negative association between heavier smoking (>10 cigarettes per day) and repeated oncogenic HPV DNA positivity.

Another possible mechanism for the relation is that smoking alters normal epithelial cell proliferation by increasing cell division and inducing metaplasia (23). This mechanism is supported by studies showing that cigarette smoke induces metaplasia in the lung epithelium and that this metaplasia precedes carcinoma (24, 25). The cigarette smoke components benzo[a]pyrene and N-methyl-N-nitrosourea have been shown to induce epithelial proliferation and metaplasia in vitro and in vivo (2630). Smoking cessation is associated with reversal of metaplasia in the lung (31). The HPV E6 and E7 genes have been found to induce immortalization in bronchial epithelial cells (3234). In addition, nicotine and smoke metabolites (cotinine, benzo[a]pyrene, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone) have been detected in cervical mucus and cervical epithelium (35, 36). Smoking, therefore, may act by increasing cell turnover in the transformation zone of the cervix. The finding that heavy smoking (>10 cigarettes per day) was associated with Ki-67 staining, which is a marker for proliferation/metaplasia, supports this hypothesis. Because the association was seen regardless of histology findings, smoking may have an early effect on the evolution of HPV-related lesions. Smoking has been associated with the absence of ectopy (37), perhaps, because smoking increases the rate at which columnar epithelium undergoes squamous metaplasia. In our analyses, ectopy confounded the relation between smoking and CIN because ectopy was negatively associated with smoking and positively associated with CIN. A third mechanism for the relation between smoking and CIN is that cigarette smoke by-products may directly transform cells infected by HPV (35, 36, 3842).

This study extended previous findings by showing that, among women with oncogenic HPV infection, the relation between smoking and CIN was present for both CIN1 and >=CIN2–3 and that this association appeared to be mediated through the effect of cigarette smoke on cell turnover. On the basis of these findings, women who are HPV positive should be advised not to smoke or to reduce the number of cigarettes that they smoke.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This work was supported by Public Health Service grant CA34493 from the National Cancer Institute.

The authors thank Planned Parenthood, Kim Tomlinson, Alison Starling, and Connie Nelson for their work on the Evaluation of Screening Methods for Cervical Cancer Study.


    NOTES
 
Correspondence to Dr. Laura Koutsky, University of Washington HPV Research Group, 1914 North 34th Street, Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98103 (e-mail: kouts{at}u.washington.edu). Back


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Human papillomaviruses. In: IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Vol 64. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1995.
  2. Kulasingam SL, Hughes JP, Kiviat NB, et al. Evaluation of human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for cervical abnormalities: comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and frequency of referral. JAMA 2002;288:1749–57.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Kjaer SK, van den Brule AJ, Bock JE, et al. Human papillomavirus—the most significant risk determinant of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Cancer 1996;65:601–6.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  4. Castle PE, Wacholder S, Lorincz AT, et al. A prospective study of high-grade cervical neoplasia risk among human papillomavirus-infected women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1406–14.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Ho GY, Kadish AS, Burk RD, et al. HPV 16 and cigarette smoking as risk factors for high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia. Int J Cancer 1998;78:281–5.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  6. Munoz N, Bosch FX, de Sanjose S, et al. Risk factors for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade III/carcinoma in situ in Spain and Colombia. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1993;2:423–31.[Abstract]
  7. Deacon JM, Evans CD, Yule R, et al. Sexual behaviour and smoking as determinants of cervical HPV infection and of CIN3 among those infected: a case-control study nested within the Manchester cohort. Br J Cancer 2000;83:1565–72.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  8. Hildesheim A, Herrero R, Castle PE, et al. HPV co-factors related to the development of cervical cancer: results from a population-based study in Costa Rica. Br J Cancer 2001;84:1219–26.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  9. Olsen AO, Dillner J, Skrondal A, et al. Combined effect of smoking and human papillomavirus type 16 infection in cervical carcinogenesis. Epidemiology 1998;9:346–9.[ISI][Medline]
  10. Peyton CL, Gravitt PE, Hunt WC, et al. Determinants of genital human papillomavirus detection in a US population. J Infect Dis 2001;183:1554–64.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  11. Gravitt PE, Peyton CL, Apple RJ, et al. Genotyping of 27 human papillomavirus types by using L1 consensus PCR products by a single-hybridization, reverse line blot detection method. J Clin Microbiol 1998;36:3020–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: revised after the second National Cancer Institute Workshop, April 29–30, 1991. Acta Cytol 1993;37:115–24.[ISI][Medline]
  13. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA). 65 Federal Register (2000) (codified at 42 CFR §493.1257). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2000. (http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/clia/docs/42cfr49300.htm).
  14. Keating JT, Cviko A, Riethdorf S, et al. Ki-67, cyclin E, and p16INK4 are complimentary surrogate biomarkers for human papilloma virus-related cervical neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol 2001;25:884–91.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  15. Gown AM. Microwave-based antigenic unmasking. A revolutionary new technique for routine immunohistochemistry. Appl Immunohistochem 1993;1:256–66.
  16. Kruse AJ, Baak JP, de Bruin PC, et al. Ki-67 immunoquantitation in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN): a sensitive marker for grading. J Pathol 2001;193:48–54.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  17. StataCorp. STATA statistical software. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation, 2001.
  18. Lee JJ, Liu D, Lee JS, et al. Long-term impact of smoking on lung epithelial proliferation in current and former smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1081–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Patrick DL, Cheadle A, Thompson DC, et al. The validity of self-reported smoking: a review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health 1994;84:1086–93.[Abstract]
  20. Barton SE, Maddox PH, Jenkins D, et al. Effect of cigarette smoking on cervical epithelial immunity: a mechanism for neoplastic change? Lancet 1988;2:652–4.[ISI][Medline]
  21. Ho GY, Bierman R, Beardsley L, et al. Natural history of cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women. N Engl J Med 1998;338:423–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Hildesheim A, Schiffman MH, Gravitt PE, et al. Persistence of type-specific human papillomavirus infection among cytologically normal women. J Infect Dis 1994;169:235–40.[ISI][Medline]
  23. Cotran R, Kuma V, Robbins S. Robbins’ pathologic basis of disease. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders Company, 1989.
  24. Carbone DP. The biology of lung cancer. Semin Oncol 1997;24:388–401.[ISI][Medline]
  25. Berg JW. Morphologic classification of human cancer. In: Schottenfeld D, Fraumeni J, Joseph F, eds. Cancer epidemiology and prevention. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc, 1996.
  26. Bhattacharyya SN, Manna B, Ashbaugh P, et al. Differentiation of respiratory epithelium: the effects of retinoic acid and carcinogens on the expression of mucociliary vs. squamous phenotype. Inflammation 1997;21:133–43.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  27. Keenan KP, Saffiotti U, Stinson SF, et al. Multifactorial hamster respiratory carcinogenesis with interdependent effects of cannula-induced mucosal wounding, saline, ferric oxide, benzo[a]pyrene, and N-methyl-N-nitrosourea. Cancer Res 1989;49:1528–40.[Abstract]
  28. Harris CC, Kaufman DG, Sporn MB, et al. Ultrastructural effects of N-methyl-N-nitrosourea on the tracheobronchial epithelium of the Syrian golden hamster. Int J Cancer 1973;12:259–69.[ISI][Medline]
  29. Harris CC, Sporn MB, Kaufman DG, et al. Histogenesis of squamous metaplasia in the hamster tracheal epithelium caused by vitamin A deficiency or benzo[a]pyrene-ferric oxide. J Natl Cancer Inst 1972;48:743–61.[ISI][Medline]
  30. Schreiber H, Bibbo M, Wied GL, et al. Bronchial metaplasia as a benign or premalignant lesion. I. Cytologic and ultrastructural discrimination between acute carcinogen effects and toxin-induced changes. Acta Cytol 1979;23:496–503.[ISI][Medline]
  31. Kurie JM, Shin HJ, Lee JS, et al. Increased epidermal growth factor receptor expression in metaplastic bronchial epithelium. Clin Cancer Res 1996;2:1787–93.[Abstract]
  32. Viallet J, Liu C, Emond J, et al. Characterization of human bronchial epithelial cells immortalized by the E6 and E7 genes of human papillomavirus type 16. Exp Cell Res 1994;212:36–41.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  33. Willey JC, Broussoud A, Sleemi A, et al. Immortalization of normal human bronchial epithelial cells by human papillomaviruses 16 or 18. Cancer Res 1991;51:5370–7.[Abstract]
  34. De Silva R, Whitaker NJ, Rogan EM, et al. HPV-16 E6 and E7 genes, like SV40 early region genes, are insufficient for immortalization of human mesothelial and bronchial epithelial cells. Exp Cell Res 1994;213:418–27.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  35. Melikian AA, Sun P, Prokopczyk B, et al. Identification of benzo[a]pyrene metabolites in cervical mucus and DNA adducts in cervical tissues in humans by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Cancer Lett 1999;146:127–34.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  36. Hellberg D, Nilsson S, Haley NJ, et al. Smoking and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: nicotine and cotinine in serum and cervical mucus in smokers and nonsmokers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;158:910–13.[ISI][Medline]
  37. Critchlow CW, Wolner-Hanssen P, Eschenbach DA, et al. Determinants of cervical ectopia and of cervicitis: age, oral contraception, specific cervical infection, smoking, and douching. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;173:534–43.[ISI][Medline]
  38. Holly EA, Petrakis NL, Friend NF, et al. Mutagenic mucus in the cervix of smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst 1986;76:983–6.[ISI][Medline]
  39. Cerqueira EM, Santoro CL, Donozo NF, et al. Genetic damage in exfoliated cells of the uterine cervix. Association and interaction between cigarette smoking and progression to malignant transformation? Acta Cytol 1998;42:639–49.[ISI][Medline]
  40. Prokopczyk B, Cox JE, Hoffmann D, et al. Identification of tobacco-specific carcinogen in the cervical mucus of smokers and nonsmokers. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:868–73.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Simons AM, Mugica van Herckenrode C, Rodriguez JA, et al. Demonstration of smoking-related DNA damage in cervical epithelium and correlation with human papillomavirus type 16, using exfoliated cervical cells. Br J Cancer 1995;71:246–9.[ISI][Medline]
  42. zur Hausen H. Human genital cancer: synergism between two virus infections or synergism between a virus infection and initiating events? Lancet 1982;2:1370–2.[Medline]