Asset Publisher

Research

Characterisation of the Rare Cases of Cervical Cancer that Are Not Attributable to Infection by HPV

ISGlobal researchers show that HPV-negative cervical carcinomas are unusual but have a poorer prognosis

20.05.2015
Photo: NIH

A study co-directed by ISGlobal researcher Dr. Jaume Ordi shows that HPV-negative carcinomas are rare but represent a distinct and more aggressive type of cervical cancer.

Although the prevalence of human papilloma virus (HPV) infection in cancer of the uterine cervix (CC) is very high, a small proportion of CCs are negative for HPV. It has been suggested that these HPV-negative cases may represent a biologically distinct set of tumors with poorer prognosis.  The aim of this study was to re-analyse CC cases that were negative for HPV using a highly sensitive PCR technique, and to determine the clinical and pathological characteristics of the rare HPV-negative CCs.  

The results show that half of the "negative" tumors were in fact positive for the virus using a more sensitive technique of molecular amplification. The percentage of women with confirmed HPV-negative tumours was very low (5% of the total) but had a higher prevalence of adenocarcinomas, in a more advanced stage and with a higher rate of metastasis.  The authors conclude that HPV-negative cervical carcinomas are rare but are associated with increased risk of progression and mortality

HPV is the most common viral infection of the reproductive tract and is normally cleared after a couple of months. However, a small percentage of infections persist and can eventually progress to cancer. Almost all cases of cervical cancer are due to HPV infection. Cervical cancer is the fourth type of cancer in women and was responsible for more than 270,000 deaths in 2013, most of them in developing countries.   

Reference:

Rodríguez-Carunchio L, Soveral I, Steenbergen RD, Torné A, Martinez S, Fusté P, et al. HPV-negative carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a distinct type of cervical cancer with poor prognosis. 2015.  BJOG. 122(1):119-27.