Gun Oh Chong1, Yoon Hee Lee1, Hyung Soo Han2, Hyun Jung Lee1, Ji Young Park3, Dae Gy Hong1, Yoon Soon Lee1, Young Lae Cho1. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: hshan@knu.ac.kr. 3. Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although the relationship between human papilloma virus (HPV) and cervical cancer is well established, the prognostic value of HPV status has not been determined, largely because previous studies have yielded conflicting results. This study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of pre-treatment HPV DNA for predicting tumor recurrence in cervical cancer. METHODS: The study included 248 eligible patients who provided cervical cell specimens for HPV genotyping before surgery or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). Of these 248 patients, 108 were treated with radical hysterectomy for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IB1-IIA cervical cancer, and 140 were treated with CCRT for FIGO stage IB2-IV cervical cancer. RESULTS: HPV 16 and 18 were the two most common HPV types detected, with prevalence rates of 52.4% and 12.5%, respectively. The pre-treatment HPV DNA test showed that 18.5% of cervical cancers were HPV negative. Multivariate analysis showed that HPV negativity was associated with poorer disease-free survival (DFS) than HPV-positive status (hazard ratio [HR], 3.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.84-8.58; p=0.0005), and patients with HPV 16-positive cancers had better DFS (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23-0.72; p=0.0019). In the surgery group, only HPV 16 positivity was significantly correlated with DFS (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.12-0.96; p=0.0416). In the CCRT group, only HPV negativity was significantly correlated with DFS (HR, 3.75; 95% CI, 1.78-7.90; p=0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-treatment HPV DNA status may be a useful prognostic biomarker in cervical cancer. The presence of HPV 16 DNA was associated with better DFS, and HPV negativity was associated with worse DFS. However, larger sample sizes and more comprehensive studies are required to verify our findings.
OBJECTIVE: Although the relationship between human papilloma virus (HPV) and cervical cancer is well established, the prognostic value of HPV status has not been determined, largely because previous studies have yielded conflicting results. This study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of pre-treatment HPV DNA for predicting tumor recurrence in cervical cancer. METHODS: The study included 248 eligible patients who provided cervical cell specimens for HPV genotyping before surgery or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). Of these 248 patients, 108 were treated with radical hysterectomy for International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IB1-IIA cervical cancer, and 140 were treated with CCRT for FIGO stage IB2-IV cervical cancer. RESULTS:HPV 16 and 18 were the two most common HPV types detected, with prevalence rates of 52.4% and 12.5%, respectively. The pre-treatment HPV DNA test showed that 18.5% of cervical cancers were HPV negative. Multivariate analysis showed that HPV negativity was associated with poorer disease-free survival (DFS) than HPV-positive status (hazard ratio [HR], 3.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.84-8.58; p=0.0005), and patients with HPV 16-positive cancers had better DFS (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23-0.72; p=0.0019). In the surgery group, only HPV 16 positivity was significantly correlated with DFS (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.12-0.96; p=0.0416). In the CCRT group, only HPV negativity was significantly correlated with DFS (HR, 3.75; 95% CI, 1.78-7.90; p=0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-treatment HPV DNA status may be a useful prognostic biomarker in cervical cancer. The presence of HPV 16 DNA was associated with better DFS, and HPV negativity was associated with worse DFS. However, larger sample sizes and more comprehensive studies are required to verify our findings.