ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Diagnostic utility and tissue localization of HPV16 and HPV18 E7 immunohistochemistry in cervical lesion progression: a comparative study with PCR.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Persistent infection with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV), particularly HPV16 and HPV18, contributes to cervical carcinogenesis through sustained expression of the viral E7 oncoprotein. Although HPV DNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is widely used for viral detection, it does not directly reflect biologically active oncogenic transformation within tissue. This study evaluated the diagnostic utility, clinicopathological significance, tissue localization, and concordance of HPV16 and HPV18 E7 immunohistochemistry (IHC) across the spectrum of cervical lesion progression. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on 109 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded cervical tissue specimens representing non-neoplastic, premalignant, and malignant lesions. HPV16 and HPV18 E7 protein expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry and compared with HPV DNA PCR findings. Concordance analysis, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and multivariable logistic regression were performed to evaluate diagnostic performance and independent predictive value. Results: HPV16 and HPV18 E7 expression increased progressively with lesion severity, with the highest immunoreactivity observed in high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and invasive carcinoma. Substantial concordance was observed between IHC and PCR findings for both HPV types. HPV16 demonstrated superior diagnostic performance, with sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC) values of 92.3%, 83.9%, 89.9%, and 0.925, respectively, compared with HPV18 (90.0%, 79.3%, 83.7%, and 0.894). Multivariable logistic regression identified HPV16 and HPV18 E7 expression as significant independent predictors of disease status. Histopathological evaluation demonstrated progressive localization patterns, transitioning from focal basal/parabasal staining in low-grade lesions to diffuse full-thickness epithelial and tumor-associated expression in high-grade lesions and invasive carcinoma. Conclusions: HPV16 and HPV18 E7 immunohistochemistry demonstrated strong association with cervical lesion severity and substantial concordance with PCR findings, supporting its potential utility as a complementary tissue-based biomarker in cervical pathology. The findings further suggest that E7 immunohistochemistry may provide clinically relevant information regarding biologically active HPV-driven transformation and improve lesion characterization in diagnostically challenging cases.
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.