4.5 Review

Cervical cancer risk profiling: molecular biomarkers predicting the outcome of hrHPV infection

期刊

EXPERT REVIEW OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS
卷 20, 期 11, 页码 1099-1120

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.1080/14737159.2020.1835472

关键词

Cervical cancer; hrHPV; molecular biomarkers; prevention; risk prediction; screening

资金

  1. Ruby and Rose Foundation
  2. Secretaria Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnologia e Innovacion de Panama (SENACYT) [270-2019-136]
  3. Erasmus + scholarship from Servicio Espanol para la Internalizacion de la Educadon
  4. Generalitat de Catalunya [BDNS 467025]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Cervical cancer affects half a million women worldwide annually. Given the association between high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) infection and carcinogenesis, hrHPV DNA testing became an essential diagnostic tool. However, hrHPV alone does not cause the disease, and, most importantly, many cervical lesions regress to normal in a year because of the host immune system. Hence, the low specificity of hrHPV DNA tests and their inability to predict the outcome of infections have triggered a further search for biomarkers. Areas covered We evaluated the latest viral and cellular biomarkers validated for clinical use as primary screening or triage for cervical cancer and assessed their promise for prevention as well as potential use in the future. The literature search focused on effective biomarkers for different stages of the disease, aiming to determine their significance in predicting the outcome of hrHPV infections. Expert opinion Biomarkers such as p16/Ki-67, hrHPV genotyping, hrHPV transcriptional status, and methylation patterns have demonstrated promising results. Their eventual implementation in the screening programs may support the prompt diagnosis of hrHPV infection and its progression to cancer. These biomarkers will help in making clinical management decisions on time, thus, saving the lives of hrHPV-infected women, particularly in developing countries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据