ArticleOncology letters2026
Unveiling mitochondrial DNA copy number alterations: Insights into progression from cervical intraepithelial neoplasia to cervical cancer.
Article in Oncology letters, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mitochondrial dysfunction has been increasingly implicated in carcinogenesis, with alterations in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) copy number reported across various cancer types. However, the role of mtDNA copy number changes in the progression from cervical intraepithelial neoplasia to invasive cervical cancer remains insufficiently characterized. The present study aimed to elucidate the association between mitochondrial DNA copy number (mtCN) variations and the progression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) to cervical cancer, and to evaluate the potential of mtCN as a biomarker for cervical cancer risk stratification. A cohort of 100 participants from the Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinic of Ankara Etlik City Hospital (Ankara, Türkiye) was enrolled. Cervical samples from the participants were categorized into four groups as follows: Normal (n=32), low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (CIN1; n=21), high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (CIN2/3; n=23) and cervical cancer (n=8). The remaining 16 samples were excluded from the analysis due to inadequate DNA yield or quality. Quantitative PCR was employed to quantify mtCN relative to nuclear DNA. Differences in mtCN according to disease category, smoking status and human papillomavirus (HPV) status were analyzed, and logistic regression modeling was performed to identify independent predictors of high-risk cervical disease (HSIL and invasive cancer). The study revealed a statistically significant stepwise increase in mtCN concomitant with increasing disease severity, reaching the highest level in cervical cancer. Notably, HPV-positive samples exhibited elevated mtCN levels compared with HPV-negative samples. In addition, smoking was associated with a significant increase in mtCN within cervical tissues. A triple model comprising mtCN fold change, smoking status and HPV status demonstrated superior predictive performance for distinguishing high-risk cervical disease, with a sensitivity of 79% and specificity of 92%. The findings indicate that mtCN alterations are associated with the progression of CIN to cervical cancer, particularly in cases who are HPV positive and smoke. To substantiate these findings and evaluate their clinical utility, larger longitudinal studies with standardized assessment protocols are imperative. However, the present study underscores the potential of mtCN as a biomarker for cervical cancer risk assessment and highlights the necessity for continued exploration into its role in tumorigenesis and diagnostic applications.
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.