Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40378233›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the National Cancer Institute2025

Lineages and sublineages of high-risk human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer and precancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Eef van den Borst, Margo Bell, Ken Op de Beeck, Guy Van Camp, Severien Van Keer, Alex Vorsters

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Eef van den BorstFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Centre for the Evaluation of Vaccination, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute, University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-0850-716X
Margo BellFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Centre for the Evaluation of Vaccination, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute, University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-8032-5312
Ken Op de BeeckFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Centre of Medical Genetics, University of Antwerp and Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-5527-6838
Guy Van CampFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Centre of Medical Genetics, University of Antwerp and Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-5105-9000
Severien Van KeerFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Centre for the Evaluation of Vaccination, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute, University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-1842-7478
Alex VorstersFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Centre for the Evaluation of Vaccination, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute, University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-0265-058X

Funding

FWO 11PJK24NFWO 1SC9125NKom Op Tegen KankerKOTK G077923NResearch Foundation Flanders
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInfection with high-risk types of the human papillomavirus (HPV) is known to cause cervical cancer. Cervical cancer risk varies greatly by genotype, which is therefore used in screening algorithms. An extensive amount of research has also focused on the differential pathogenicity of high-risk HPV subtypes called lineages and sublineages (respectively 1.0%-10% and 0.5%-1.0% genetic difference), albeit with inconclusive and contradictory results. Therefore, the topic is systematically reviewed for the first time to determine whether the clinical use of (sub)lineage detection is supported.

methodsThree databases for health sciences (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) were searched for relevant papers. Meta-analysis was performed for HPV16-positive patients with cervical cancer and healthy participants using random effects models.

resultsThe search yielded 1535 records, and 93 papers were included after the selection process. Although some trends in disease association were detected, 46 studies did not find statistically significant differences between (sub)lineages in individuals with and without cervical disease. Additionally, the reports are heterogeneous in terms of study design and often characterized by a small sample size. The meta-analysis found odds ratios of 2.2 (95% CI = 1.49 to 3.15) for HPV16 A4; 2.1 (95% CI = 1.25 to 3.40) for HPV16 D; and 0.48 (95% CI = 0.33 to 0.68) for HPV16 A1-3 with statistically significant heterogeneity (38%-77%).

conclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis provide an overview of the high-risk types of HPV (sub)lineages and association with cervical disease. Although some (sub)lineages marginally correlate with cervical malignancy, there is great variability. Unlike genotyping, this study demonstrates insufficient association between high-risk HPV (sub)lineages and cervical malignancy for clinical use to date.

Indexed as

Human papillomavirus 16PapillomaviridaePapillomavirus InfectionsPrecancerous ConditionsUterine Cervical NeoplasmsFemaleGenotypeHuman Papillomavirus VirusesHumansRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID40378233
PMCPMC12682390

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.