Prevalence of abnormal oral cytology and impact of sexual behavior in women with abnormal cervical cytology

Abstract

Purpose of investigation:To assess the frequency of oral cytological abnormalities in women who have cervical intraepithelial lesions, and transmission of infection depending on their sexual behavior. The authors also aimed to investigate the oral cytological changes in male partners. Material and Methods: Thirty patients with abnormal cervical cytological results via punch biopsy formed the case group, and 68 patients constituted the control group with normal cervical smear results. The Bethesda system was used for classification of the cytological alterations. Results: Oral dysplasia was significantly higher in the squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL) group. Oral sex percentage was 43.3% in SIL group, whereas it was 19.1% in the control group. History of genital warts in women with SIL was also significantly higher in the case group. Three patients were diagnosed with abnormal oral cytology in the SIL group (10%), however abnormal oral cytology was not detected in the control group. No oral dysplastic changes was identified in the male partners of women with oral lesions. Conclusion: The authors detected oral dysplastic changes in the SIL group, especially in the (low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LGSIL) patients. Interestingly they could not find any oral dysplastic changes in the male partners of the study population.

Low Rates of Dual-Site and Concordant Oral-Cervical Human Papillomavirus Infections and Cancers: A Systematic Review

“…For the quality assessment of the 114 included papers based on the QATQS tool, 26 studies (23%) were classified as strong ( 73 , 76 , 77 , 79 – 81 , 104 – 111 , 113 – 116 , 118 , 121 – 127 ), 81 studies (71%) were moderate ( 4 , 15 – 26 , 28 , 29 , 31 – 49 , 52 – 58 , 60 , 62 – 72 , 74 , 75 , 78 , 82 – 91 , 93 – 103 , 112 , 117 , 119 , 120 ), and 7 (6%) were weak ( 27 , 30 , 50 , 51 , 59 , 61 , 92 ) ( Tables 3A–C ). The most common component rated as weak was study design (n=79, 69%) ( 4 , 15 – 72 , 84 – 103 ); only a few studies used a case-control design (n=2, 2%) ( 76 , 104 ) or cohort design (n=33, 29%) ( 73 – 75 , 77 – 83 , 105 – 127 ) with the majority being cross-sectional designs (n=79, 69%) ( 4 , 15 – 72 , 84 – 103 ).…”

“…Few studies listed participant data individually, making it unclear if a participant had the same infection in both sites. In turn, oral-cervical HPV type concordance data was missing or could not be deduced for more than half of the papers (n=62/114, 54%) ( 17 – 19 , 22 , 24 , 28 , 30 , 34 , 35 , 40 , 41 , 44 – 46 , 48 , 49 , 53 – 55 , 64 , 66 , 71 , 75 , 76 , 79 – 83 , 87 , 90 , 94 , 95 , 98 – 104 , 106 – 127 ).…”