The Presence of Human Papillomavirus DNA Integration is Associated with Poor Clinical Results in Patients with Third-Stage Cervical Cancer

Circulating cell-free HPV DNA is a strong marker for disease severity in cervical cancer

For cervical cancer (CC), circulating cell-free HPV DNA (ccfHPV) may establish disease severity. Furthermore, HPV integration has been correlated to viral load and survival. In this study, pre-treatment plasma from 139 CC cases (50 primary surgery patients, 22 primary surgery + adjuvant oncological therapy patients, and 67 primary oncological therapy patients) was collected (2018-2020). Furthermore, plasma from 25 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 patients and 15 healthy women (negative controls) were collected. Two next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels were used to establish ccfHPV presence and human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV16) integration status. ccfHPV was detected in four primary surgery (8.0%), eight primary surgery + adjuvant oncology (36.4%), and 54 primary oncology (80.6%) patients. For primary oncology patients with HPV16-related cancer (n = 37), more ccfHPVneg than ccfHPVpos patients had HPV16 integration (P = 0.04), and in patients with HPV16 integration (n = 13), ccfHPVpos patients had higher disease stages than ccfHPVneg patients (P = 0.05). In summary, ccfHPV presence is related to disease severity and may add to the debated Sedlis criteria used for identifying patients for adjuvant oncological therapy. However, ccfHPV detection is influenced by HPV integration status and disease stage, and these factors need to be considered in ccfHPVneg patients.

Human papillomavirus associated cervical lesion: pathogenesis and therapeutic interventions

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most prevalent sexually transmitted virus globally. Persistent high-risk HPV infection can result in cervical precancerous lesions and cervical cancer, with 70% of cervical cancer cases associated with high-risk types HPV16 and 18. HPV infection imposes a significant financial and psychological burden. Therefore, studying methods to eradicate HPV infection and halt the progression of precancerous lesions remains crucial. This review comprehensively explores the mechanisms underlying HPV-related cervical lesions, including the viral life cycle, immune factors, epithelial cell malignant transformation, and host and environmental contributing factors. Additionally, we provide a comprehensive overview of treatment methods for HPV-related cervical precancerous lesions and cervical cancer. Our focus is on immunotherapy, encompassing HPV therapeutic vaccines, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and advanced adoptive T cell therapy. Furthermore, we summarize the commonly employed drugs and other nonsurgical treatments currently utilized in clinical practice for managing HPV infection and associated cervical lesions. Gene editing technology is currently undergoing clinical research and, although not yet employed officially in clinical treatment of cervical lesions, numerous preclinical studies have substantiated its efficacy. Therefore, it holds promise as a precise treatment strategy for HPV-related cervical lesions.

The Prognostic Values of HPV Genotypes and Tumor PD-L1 Expression in Patients With HPV-associated Endocervical Adenocarcinoma

Despite the well-established pathogenic effect of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) genotypes on endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECAs), the prognostic values of hrHPV genotypes and their association with other prognostic variables have not been established. We categorized 120 usual-type human papillomavirus-associated (HPVA) ECA cases into 3 species groups (HPV16+, HPV18/45+, and other genotypes+) based on the hrHPV status. The clinical-stage, invasion patterns (Silva), and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression were compared among genotype groups. In addition, log-rank test and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to compare progression-free survival (PFS) among different patient groups. A total of 120 ECA cases with positive hrHPV tests were included in this study. Among them, 51 (42.5%) were positive for HPV16, 50 (41.7%) were positive for HPV18 or 18/45, 9 (7.5%) were positive for other hrHPV genotypes (not including HPV16/18/45). Our data showed patients had no significant difference in clinical stages (P=0.51), invasion patterns (P=0.55), and PFS (P=0.59) across genotype groups. Overall, a relatively high prevalence of PD-L1 expression was observed in HPVA ECAs (25% by tumor proportion score [TPS] and 55% by a combined positive score [CPS]). Using TPS, 19.6% (10/51) HPV16+ cases, 32.0% (16/50) cases of HPV18 or 18/45+ cases, and 22.2% (2/9) cases of other genotypes+ cases demonstrated PD-L1 positivity. No significant difference in PD-L1 expression was seen across genotype groups (P=0.35). PD-L1 expression in tumors with patterns B and C was significantly higher than in those with pattern A (P=0.00002). Patients with PD-L1-positive tumors by either CPS or TPS showed significantly poorer PFS than those with PD-L1-negative tumors (CPS, P=0.025; TPS, P=0.001). Our data support that HPV genotypes have no prognostic value in HPVA ECAs, while PD-L1 expression serves as a negative prognostic marker in HPVA ECAs and implies an unfavorable outcome.

Association of human papillomavirus integration with better patient outcomes in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The molecular drivers of human papillomavirus-related head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HPV + HNSCC) are not entirely understood. This study evaluated the relationship between HPV integration, expression of E6/E7, and patient outcomes in p16+ HNSCCs.

METHODS

HPV type was determined by HPV PCR-MassArray, and integration was called using detection of integrated papillomavirus sequences polymerase chain reaction (PCR). We investigated whether fusion transcripts were produced by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). E6/E7 expression was assessed by quantitative RT-PCR. We assessed if there was a relationship between integration and E6/E7 expression, clinical variables, or patient outcomes.

RESULTS

Most samples demonstrated HPV integration, which sometimes resulted in a fusion transcript. HPV integration was positively correlated with age at diagnosis and E6/E7 expression. There was a significant difference in survival between patients with vs without integration.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to previous reports, HPV integration was associated with improved patient survival. Therefore, HPV integration may act as a molecular marker of good prognosis.

Better or Worse? The Independent Prognostic Role of HPV-16 or HPV-18 Positivity in Patients With Cervical Cancer: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Background: The literature reports conflicting results regarding the effect of human papillomavirus (HPV) genotype 16 (HPV-16)/18 (HPV-18) positivity on cervical cancer (CC) prognosis.

Aim: To conduct a meta-analysis to examine the effect of HPV-16/18 positivity on the prognosis of patients with CC.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for available papers published up to March 2020. The main outcome was the hazard ratio (HR) of overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS) comparing HPV-16 or HPV-18 positivity and negativity. The random-effects model was used for synthesizing survival outcomes.

Results: Nine studies and 2,028 patients were included. Four studies reported OS in HPV-16 positivity, and no association was found between HPV-16 positivity and OS to CC (HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.26–2.39, P = 0.675). Three studies reported DFS in HPV-16 positivity, and no association was found between HPV-16 positivity and DFS to CC (HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.30–2.11, P = 0.654). Two studies reported DFS in HPV-18 positivity, and no association was found between HPV-18 positivity and DFS to CC (HR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.55–1.78, P = 0.984). One study reported progression-free survival (PFS) in HPV-18 positivity, and an association was observed between HPV-18 positivity and PFS to CC (HR = 2.66, 95% CI: 1.44–4.94, P = 0.002). The sensitivity analyses showed that one study biased the analysis of the association between HPV-16 and OS, and another study biased the association between HPV-16 and DFS.

Conclusion: The presence of HPV-16 and HPV-18 positivity appears to have no significant association with prognosis in CC in either OS or PFS. The presence of HPV-16 or HPV-18 positivity has no significant association with prognosis in CC in either OS or PFS.