HPV73 is classified as possibly oncogenic. It is neither routinely evaluated in HPV screening, nor covered by any of the prophylactic vaccines. We sought to investigate the carcinogenic characteristics of HPV73. Molecular studies were performed on eight cervix cancer biopsy specimens containing HPV73 from a cross‐sectional cancer cohort of 590 women referred to the National Cancer Institute in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Transcriptional activity of HPV73 was evaluated by detection of spliced transcripts of E6/E6* and E1^E4 in cDNA created from RNA isolated from fresh tissue. Disruption of viral E1 and E2 genes in the tumor DNA was assessed by overlapping PCR amplification. Evaluation of viral integration was performed using a customized capture panel and next‐generation sequencing, and an in‐house bioinformatic pipeline. HPV73 E6/E6* transcripts were found in 7/7 specimens with available RNA, and three also had HPV73 E1^E4 transcripts. Disruption of E1 and E2 genes was observed in 4/8 specimens. Integration of HPV73 sequences into the cancer cell genomes was identified in all cervix cancer tissues. These results provide evidence that HPV73 is an oncogenic virus that can cause invasive cervix cancer. With current molecular screening and HPV vaccination, not all cervix cancers will be prevented.

ObjectivesTo compare and describe type-specific characteristics of HPV16, HPV18 and HPV45 in cervical cancer with respect to 3′LCR methylation and disruption of E1/E2.MethodsThe methylation level of 137 cervical cancer samples (70 with HPV16, 37 with HPV18, and 30 with HPV45) of Brazilian patients was analyzed by pyrosequencing. PCR amplifications were performed to characterize E1 and E2 disruption as an episomal surrogate.ResultsThe 3′LCR of HPV16 showed a higher methylation at all CpG sites (7%, 9%, 11%, 10% and 10%) than homologous HPV18 regions (4%, 5%. 6%, 9% and 5%) and HPV45 regions (7%, 7% and 5%). Presence of intact E1/E2 was associated with higher HPV16 and HPV18 methylation levels at all CpG sites (p < 0.05). Disruption of E1/E2 was more frequently found in HPV45 (97%) and HPV18 (84%) than in HPV16 DNA (30%). HPV16 disruption was more frequently found in E1 (48%) unlike HPV18, where it was found in E2 (61%). Concomitant disruption of E1/E2 was most frequent in HPV45 (72%).ConclusionsThe findings showed a higher methylation associated with intact E1/E2 for HPV16 and HPV18. The closely phylogenetic related HPV18 and HPV45 share a similar methylation level and the frequency of viral genome disruption.

The present study shows that HPV-infected cells strongly express MCM2; nevertheless, our data suggests that MCM2 is not a good biomarker when comparing the different clinical stages of cervical cancer.

Cell cycle protein expression plays an important role in the pathophysiology of cervical cancer. However, few studies have attempted to correlate the use of these biomarkers with the clinical progression of the tumor.Objectives1) To analyze the expression of Ki-67, p53 and p16INK4a in cervical cancer, 2) to correlate the relative expression of these proteins as well as clinical parameters with the stage of disease, and 3) to determine the HPV DNA prevalence and subtype distribution.MethodsTissue Micro-Arrays (TMA) from patients with invasive cervical cancer (ICC) and controls were analyzed. HPV DNA detection was done by PCR and in situ hybridization. Ki-67, p53 and p16INK4a were analyzed by immunohistochemistry; clinical data was derived from the chart review.ResultsAdvanced tumor stage (III and IV) was strongly associated (p<0.005) with advanced age (>55 years old), with more than four pregnancies and with the lack of formal education. HPV DNA was found in 94.3% of cases with the most prevalent types being HPV16 (67.5%), followed by HPV33 (12.0%) and HPV35 (3.6%). High expression of Ki-67 and p16 was more common in the advanced FIGO stages (p = 0.023). Women with HPV16 tended to be younger (50.9 years; SE 1.9) compared to women with other types (59.9 years; SE 2.8).ConclusionWe found that Ki-67 and p16 expression were independently associated with the tumor stage. We also noted that about 1/3 of the cervical cancers in this Brazilian cohort were not associated with HPV types directly targeted by the current HPV vaccines.

Although several studies have evaluated the role of p16INK4a as a diagnostic marker of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and its association with disease progression, studies regarding the role of p16INK4a in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients remain scarce. The present study was designed to determine the potential utility of p16INK4a as a diagnostic marker for CIN and invasive cervical cancer in HIV-positive and negative cervical specimens. An immunohistochemical analysis of p16INK4a was performed in 326 cervical tissue microarray specimens. Performance indicators were calculated and compared using receiving operating characteristics curve (ROC)/area under the curve. In HIV-1-negative women, the percentage of cells that was positive for p16INK4a expression was significantly correlated with the severity of CIN (p < 0.0001). A ROC curve with a cut-off value of 55.28% resulted in a sensitivity of 89%, a specificity of 81%, a positive predictive value of 91% and a negative predictive value of 78%. HIV-seropositive women exhibited decreased expression of p16INK4a in CIN2–3 specimens compared with HIV-negative specimens (p = 0.031). The ROC data underscore the potential utility of p16INK4a under defined conditions as a diagnostic marker for CIN 2–3 staging and invasive cervical cancer. HIV-1 infection, however, is associated with relatively reduced p16INK4a expression in CIN 2–3.