4.7 Article

HPV16 genetic variation and the development of cervical cancer worldwide

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 108, 期 1, 页码 240-244

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.508

关键词

human papillomavirus; HPV16; variants; case-control; worldwide

类别

资金

  1. Association for International Cancer Research (AICR), UK [08-0213]
  2. Institut National du Cancer (INCa), France [07/3D1514/PL-89-05/NG-LC]
  3. Fondation Innovations en Infectiologie (FINOVI) [AO1-project 2]
  4. European Commission [HPV-AHEAD (FP7-HEALTH-2011-282562)]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Factors that favour a small proportion of HPV16 infections to progress to cancer are still poorly understood, but several studies have implicated a role of HPV16 genetic variation. Methods: To evaluate the association between HPV16 genetic variants and cervical cancer risk, we designed a multicentre case-control study based on HPV16-positive cervical samples (1121 cervical cancer cases and 400 controls) from the International Agency for Research on Cancer biobank. By sequencing the E6 gene, HPV16 isolates were classified into variant lineages and the European (EUR)-lineage isolates were subclassified by the common polymorphism T350G. Results: Incidence of variant lineages differed between cases and controls in Europe/Central Asia (P = 0.006, driven by an underrepresentation of African lineages in cases), and South/Central America (P = 0.056, driven by an overrepresentation of Asian American/North American lineages in cases). EUR-350G isolates were significantly underrepresented in cervical cancer in East Asia (odds ratio (OR) = 0.02 vs EUR-350T; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.00-0.37) and Europe/Central Asia (OR = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.27-0.64), whereas the opposite was true in South/Central America (OR = 4.69; 95% CI = 2.07-10.66). Conclusion: We observed that the distribution of HPV16 variants worldwide, and their relative risks for cervical cancer appear to be population-dependent.

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

4.7
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