3.8 Article

Human papillomavirus genotype and prognosis of cervical cancer: Favorable survival of patients with HPV16-positive tumors

Journal

PAPILLOMAVIRUS RESEARCH
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages 41-45

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.pvr.2018.10.005

Keywords

Cervical cancer; Human papillomavirus (HPV); Prognosis; Radiosensitivity; Survival

Categories

Funding

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [15K10701, 17K11297]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K10701, 17K11297] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The prognostic impact of human papillomavirus (HPV) type on invasive cervical cancer (ICC) was analyzed for 137 women treated for ICC at a single institution between 1999 and 2007. The study subjects were divided into three groups according to HPV genotype: HPV16-positive (n = 59), HPV18-positive (n = 33), and HPV16/18-negative ICC (non-HPV16/18, n = 45). The median follow-up time was 102.5 months (range, 5-179). The 10-year overall survival (10y-OS) rates in women with FIGO stage I/II disease were similar among HPV genotypes: 94.7% for HPV16 (n = 39), 95.2% for HPV18 (n = 26), and 96.4% for non-HPV16/18 (n = 29). However, the 10y-OS rates in women with FIGO stage III/IV tumors were 73.7% for HPV16 (n = 20), 45.7% for HPV18 (n = 7), and 35.7% for other types (n = 16), with significantly higher survival in HPV16-positive compared with HPV16-negative ICC (10y-OS; 73.7% vs. 39.5%, P = 0.04). This difference in FIGO stage III/IV tumors remained significant after adjusting for age and histology (hazard ratio 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.09-0.86, P = 0.02). These results suggest that detection of HPV16 DNA may be associated with a favorable prognosis in patients with FIGO stage III/IV ICC. Given that most women with FIGO stage hilly tumors received concurrent chemoradiotherapy, this finding may imply that HPV16-positive tumors are more chemoradiosensitive.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available