ArticlePapillomavirus research (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2019
HPV16 variant analysis in primary and recurrent CIN2/3 lesions demonstrates presence of the same consensus variant.
Article in Papillomavirus research (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intra-Patient Genomic Variations of Human Papillomavirus Type 31 in Cervical Cancer and Precancer.Viruses · 2023Article
- Characterization of the Human Papillomavirus 16 Oncogenes in K14HPV16 Mice: Sublineage A1 Drives Multi-Organ Carcinogenesis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Association of cervical carcinogenesis risk with HPV16 E6 and E7 variants in the Taizhou area, China.BMC cancer · 2021Article
- High Levels of Within-Host Variations of Human Papillomavirus 16Frontiers in microbiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRecurrent cervical intraepithelial lesions (rCIN2/3) after treatment of CIN2/3 occur in 5-15% of cases. rCIN2/3 can result from incomplete resection of CIN2/3, where the same HPV type and variant remains present. rCIN2/3 could also occur following a new infection with a different HPV variant of the same HPV type as the initial lesion. This study investigates HPV16 consensus variants in paired HPV16 positive scrapes from baseline CIN2/3 and rCIN2/3 lesions.
methodsPaired HPV16 positive cervical scrapes of women with CIN2/3 at baseline and rCIN2/3 6 or 12 months after treatment were selected for whole-genome amplification and Illumina sequencing. Sequences were compared and nucleotide changes over time were characterized.
resultsFrom 14 paired samples, 10 had identical consensus variants in baseline CIN2/3 and rCIN2/3. Four paired samples showed one to three nucleotide variations at recurrent disease compared to baseline.
conclusionIdentical or nearly identical HPV16 consensus variants were found in scrapes of paired HPV16 positive baseline CIN2/3 and rCIN2/3 lesions after treatment, suggesting no need for HPV variant analysis when the same HPV type is found in both lesions. These results argue for either incomplete excision of baseline CIN2/3 or inability of clearance of the original HPV infection.
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.