Human Papillomavirus Prevalence and Integration Status in Tissue Samples of Bladder Cancer in the Chinese Population

Abstract

Background Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is associated with multiple types of cancer, but the evidence has not yet been fully elucidated in bladder cancer. Methods Frozen tissue samples collected from 146 patients aged 32 to 89 years-old with bladder cancer pathological diagnosis between 2015 and 2019 were analyzed. HPV genotyping and integration status determination were performed by capture-based next generation sequencing. Statistical analysis of HPV type distributions was performed according to stage, grade, gender and age group of patients. Results Mean age of 146 patients was 66.64 ± 10.06 years and 83.56% were male. Overall HPV infection rate was 28.77% (37.5% in female and 27% in male), with 11.90% HPV integration events. Among them, 17.12% single and 11.65% co-infections were observed. HPV18 (24.66%) was the most prevalent genotype, followed by HPV33, 16, 39. All HPV were European lineage (A). HPV16 was more prevalent in female (p=0.04). Conclusion HPV infection may contribute a causative role both in men and women with bladder cancer. HPV18, followed by HPV 33, 16 and 39 genotypes potentially represent the predominant oncogenic risk types of bladder carcinogenesis.

Feasibility and Accuracy of Menstrual Blood Testing for High-risk Human Papillomavirus Detection With Capture Sequencing

“…Our previous HPV detection reports 16 , 17 provided details on the HPV genotyping method. Briefly, after filtering of low-quality reads and duplicated reads, all clean reads were aligned to the merged 15 hrHPVs whole-genome sequence.…”

Prevalence of Human Papilloma Virus Infection in Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review

“…Studies were published during the period 1995 [ 31 , 35 , 36 , 38 ]–2021 [ 44 , 57 ]. Patients were enrolled between 1985 [ 17 ] and 2019 [ 57 ].…”

“…Patients were enrolled between 1985 [ 17 ] and 2019 [ 57 ]. The epidemiological study types were observational retrospective (26, 56.5%) [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 44 , 46 , 52 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ], case-control (11, 23.9%) [ 14 , 19 , 20 , 32 , 37 , 42 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 53 , 54 ], prospective (8, 17.4%) [ 21 , 22 , 33 , 41 , 43 , 45 , 48 , 51 ], and comparative (1, 2.2%) [ 28 ]. Most of them were single-center (44/46, 95.7%) [ 14 , ...…”

“…Most of them were single-center (44/46, 95.7%) [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ], and only two (4.3%) were multi-center [ 17 , 18 ]. Single-center studies were performed in Europe (18, 40.9%) [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 35 ,…”

Immunological changes after COVID-19 vaccination in an HIV-positive patient

“…Nevertheless, more than a year into the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), several vaccines from different platforms have been developed, though no effective vaccines for HIV had been employed, probably due to the different mechanisms of infection [2] . Vaccination for this newly emerged infection in PLWH becomes of vital significance because of the potentially worse outcome after infection than in the general population [ 3 , 4 ]. However, up till now, no large-scale study has been completed on the safety profiles of COVID-19 vaccines specifically within the PLWH population.…”