Association of Elevated E6 Oncoprotein With Grade of Cervical Neoplasia Using PDZ Interaction-Mediated Precipitation of E6

Accuracy of HPV E6/E7 oncoprotein tests to detect high-grade cervical lesions: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cervical carcinogenesis is mediated by the HPV-E6 and E7 oncoproteins, considered as biomarkers usable in managing screen-positive women.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the accuracy of HPV-E6/E7-oncoprotein tests to detect underlying cervical-precancer and cancer. We included studies reporting data on oncoprotein test accuracy detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse. Random effects logistic regression models were applied for pooling absolute and relative accuracy.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included. Sensitivity and specificity estimates ranged from 54.2% (95%CI: 45.2-63.0) to 69.5% (95%CI:60.8-76.9) and from 82.8% (95%CI: 50.4-95.8) to 99.1 (95%CI: 98.8-99.3), respectively in the population irrespective of HPV status. Higher sensitivity estimates ranging from 60.8% (95%CI: 49.6-70.9) to 75.5% (95%CI: 71.7-78.9) but lower specificity estimates ranging from 83.7% (95%CI: 76.1-89.3) to 92.1% (95%CI: 88.5-94.6) were observed in studies enrolling high-risk-HPV-positive women. Studies recruiting only HIV-positive women showed a pooled sensitivity of 46.9% (95%CI: 30.6-63.9) with a specificity of 98.0% (95%CI: 96.8-98.7).

CONCLUSIONS

The high specificity of oncoprotein tests supports its use for triaging HPV-positive women. However, oncoprotein-negative women would not be recommended to undertake routine screening, requiring further follow-up. Large-scale and longitudinal studies are needed to further investigate the role of E6/E7-oncoprotein detection in predicting the risk of developing cervical pre-cancer and cancer.

Role of molecular biomarker human papilloma virus (HPV) E6 oncoprotein in cervical cancer screening

OBJECTIVE

The Onco E6™ Cervical Test, based on detection of the E6 oncoprotein of HPV 16 and 18 genotypes is evaluated as a screen for the early detection cervical neoplasia in resource-limited countries.

METHODS

This prospective study from June 2018 to June 2019 evaluated 235 women aged 21-65 years, who came to Gynaecological Oncology Outpatient Department by VIA, cytology, E6 oncoprotein test and by colposcopy. Screen-positive women by any of the tests or women with suspicious findings were further evaluated by biopsy at colposcopy. The McNemar test was used to compare the performance of E6 oncoprotein test with other screening tests.

RESULTS

The E6 oncoprotein positivity rate was 6.8% (n = 16) with 81.25% HPV 16 positive and 18.75% HPV 18 positive. Among VIA positive cases (n = 100), E6 oncoprotein was positive in 9% (p < .001). In histopathology confirmed chronic cervicitis, CIN I, CIN II, CIN III and invasive cervical cancer, E6 test was positive for 2.8%, 4.7%, 25%, 50% and 100% respectively. E6 oncoprotein test had the highest specificity and Positive Predictive Value (PPV; 97% and 75%) compared to VIA (42% and 18%), cytology (95% and 46%) and colposcopy (94% and 59%). Sensitivity of the E6 oncoprotein test for detection of CIN3+ was significantly higher than that of cytology (52% VS 25%) but lower than that of VIA (52% VS 74%).

CONCLUSIONS

The HPV E6 oncoprotein test is highly specific and is an effective triage test to reduce colposcopy referrals for the large number of false positive test outcomes seen with VIA.

The association between human papillomavirus 16, 18 DNA load and E6 protein expression in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer

BACKGROUND

It has been reported that high HPV DNA load and elevated E6 protein expression correlate with cervical cancer, but no epidemiological study has been performed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the association between type-specific HPV DNA load and presence of E6 protein in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer.

STUDY DESIGN

This study was a cross-sectional multicenter study performed between 2013 and 2017. A total of 1717 women (normal histopathology: n = 916; CIN1: n = 94; CIN2: n = 63; CIN3: n = 130; SCC: n = 474; adenocarcinoma: n = 40) were included. HPV DNA load and presence of E6 protein were detected. DNA load was measured as log copies/10,000 cells.

RESULTS

The HPV16/18-E6 positivity rates increased from negative for DNA to the highest load grade. Compared to the HPV16 DNA negatives, women with low (RR = 31.5, 95%CI = 18.9-52.5), medium-low (RR = 133.5, 95%CI = 77.3-230.7), medium-high (RR = 247.9, 95%CI = 134.9-455.6) and high DNA loads (RR = 677.9, 95%CI = 301.6-1523.7) had increasingly higher relative ratios of HPV16-E6 expression. The association of HPV18-E6 with its DNA load was also significant for low (RR = 27.9, 95%CI = 10.4-74.9), medium-low (RR = 89.0, 95%CI = 32.8-241.3), medium-high (RR = 276.8, 95%CI = 76.7-998.9) and high grade (RR = 441.2, 95%CI = 97.7-1992.4). The positivity rates of both HPV16 DNA and E6 protein increased consistently with the severity of diseases from normal histopathology to SCC. Unlike HPV16, the trends of HPV18 DNA and E6 protein fluctuated consistently among women from normal histopathology to cancer. DNA load in E6-positive women was significantly higher than E6-negative for both types.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a type-dependent association between HPV16/18 DNA load and E6 protein; our study furthers the understanding of the natural history of cervical cancer.