2014
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.29019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Judging the carcinogenicity of rare human papillomavirus types

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
17
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
(12 reference statements)
1
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Among women with single infections of HPV35 and HPV66, we observed no cases of CIN3+ during follow‐up. For HPV66, this is in agreement with the fact that this HPV type is rarely found in prevalent cervical cancer . Accordingly, HPV66 was downgraded from Group 1 (carcinogenic) to Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic) in the most recent classification of HPV types by IARC .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 73%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Among women with single infections of HPV35 and HPV66, we observed no cases of CIN3+ during follow‐up. For HPV66, this is in agreement with the fact that this HPV type is rarely found in prevalent cervical cancer . Accordingly, HPV66 was downgraded from Group 1 (carcinogenic) to Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic) in the most recent classification of HPV types by IARC .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 73%
“…For HPV66, this is in agreement with the fact that this HPV type is rarely found in prevalent cervical cancer. 4,43 Accordingly, HPV66 was downgraded from Group 1 (carcinogenic) to Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic) in the most recent classification of HPV types by IARC. 44 In contrast, HPV35 is relatively common in prevalent CIN3 6 and cervical cancer.…”
Section: Epidemiologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, other investigations did not support these results (Sandri et al, 2009;Sjoeborg et al, 2010). Recent findings suggest that more HPV types from the carcinogenic Group 2 may cause cervical cancer although their attributable fraction is believed to be low (Combes et al, 2015;Halec et al, 2014). These contrasting points deserve further investigation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…Moreover, HPV67 detection is significantly higher in ICC than in normal cytology. However, the prevalence of HPV67 in ICC remains lower than HPV6 . Carcinogenic transformation by HPV16 and HPV18 is promoted by E6 and E7 oncogene expression leading to cell cycle and tumour suppression dysregulation, and indicative markers such as p53 downregulation appear similar in HPV67‐related carcinogenesis .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the prevalence of HPV67 in ICC remains lower than HPV6. [11][12][13][14] Carcinogenic transformation by HPV16 and HPV18 is promoted by E6 and E7 oncogene expression leading to cell cycle and tumour suppression dysregulation, and indicative markers such as p53 downregulation appear similar in HPV67-related carcinogenesis. 8,11,15 However, proof of carcinogenicity is not provided by phylogenetic evidence or in vitro activity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%