ArticlePloS one2015
No viral association found in a set of differentiated vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia cases by human papillomavirus and pan-viral microarray testing.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ocular squamous cell carcinoma in Holstein cows from the South of Brazil.Veterinary world · 2017Article
- Squamous precursor lesions of the vulva: current classification and diagnostic challenges.Pathology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Vulvar Intraepithelial Neoplasia (VIN) is the precursor lesion of Vulvar Squamous Cell Carcinoma (VSCC), and the differentiated type (dVIN) is more frequently observed in relation to VSCC. In contrast to usual-type VIN (uVIN), which is related to infection by human papillomavirus (HPV), a germline mutation in the p53 gene is thought to be associated with ~90% of dVIN cases. To date, no infectious agent has been identified in association with dVIN, and studies investigating this possibility have been hindered by the difficulty in accurately diagnosing dVIN from small biopsies. Here, we used immunostaining for p16ink4a), a biomarker for HPV infection, to study 14 uVIN high-grade VIN and 14 dVIN cases, and to select 10 dVIN cases to broadly screen for all kn(own viruses using a pan-viral microarray platform (ViroChip). All of the uVIN tissue samples, including 8 warty and 6 basaloid cases, showed positivity with the p16(ink4a) immunostain. The staining pattern was full-thickness for all except two cases in which positive staining was localized in the lower 1/3 of the epidermis. In contrast, immunostaining for p16(ink4a) was negative in all dVIN cases. ViroChip analysis of 10 pure dVIN samples confirmed the absence of human papillomavirus subtypes or any other virus with the exception of a single sample that showed a weak microarray signature to a porcine herpesvirus. Follow-up PCR testing of the sample was negative for herpesvirus, and in-depth metagenomic next-generation sequencing revealed only sequences corresponding to non-pathogenic viral flora and bacterial contamination. In this study, we demonstrated lack of a virus association in 10 dVIN cases. Alternative pathways for carcinogenesis such as the p53 mutation should be considered for investigation of potential treatment options in dVIN.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.