4.6 Article

Role of human papillomavirus in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: A meta-analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY
Volume 70, Issue 4, Pages 621-629

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2014.01.857

Keywords

cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma; human papillomavirus; immunocompetence; immunosuppression; meta-analysis; skin cancer

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The role of human papillomavirus (HPV) in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cuSCC) is not well defined, with past studies showing conflicting results. Objective: We sought to determine if there is a significant association between HPV and cuSCC and whether cuSCC from immunosuppressed patients are more likely to carry HPV than cuSCC from immunocompetent patients. Methods: We performed a systematic review and abstracted data from articles that included: skin samples by biopsy, HPV detection by polymerase chain reaction, and a minimum of 10 cases and 10 controls. Pooled effect size and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis using the inverse variance method. Results: cuSCC were more likely to carry HPV than normal-appearing skin (pooled effect size [ES] 3.43, 95% confidence interval 1.97-5.98, P<.0001) in all patients. An increase in HPV prevalence was found in tumors from immunosuppressed patients compared with immunocompetent patients (pooled ES 3.01, 95% confidence interval 2.00-4.52, P<.0001). Limitations: The greatest limitation is the heterogeneity of the studies included. The association of higher HPV prevalence in squamous cell carcinoma compared with normal-appearing skin does not imply causality. Conclusion: These results contribute to evidence that HPV is associated with cuSCC. Higher HPV burden in tumors from immunosuppressed patients compared with immunocompetent patients may have therapeutic implications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available