Association between human herpesvirus infection and cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer (CC) is one of the most common gynecologic tumors among women around the world. Although the etiological role of human papillomavirus (HPV) in CC is well established, other factors in CC carcinogenesis remains unclear. Here, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the association between infections of human herpesvirus (HHVs) and CC risk. METHODS: Embase and PubMed databases were utilized to search the relevant studies. The revised JBI Critical Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Prevalence and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to evaluate the association between viral infection and CC or precancerous cervical lesions (PCL). RESULTS: Totally 67 eligible studies involving 7 different HHVs were included in meta-analysis. We found an increased risk of CC or PCL that was associated with the overall infection of HHVs (CC, OR = 2.74, 95% CI 2.13-3.53; PCL, OR = 1.95, 95% CI 1.58-2.41). Subgroup analysis showed a trend towards positive correlations between herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) infection and CC (OR = 3.01, 95% CI 2.24 to 4.04) or PCL (OR = 2.14, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.96), and the same is true between Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection and CC (OR = 4.89, 95% CI 2.18 to 10.96) or PCL (OR = 3.55, 95% CI 2.52 to 5.00). However, for HSV-1 and cytomegalovirus (HCMV), there was no association between viral infection and CC or PCL. By contrast, the roles of HHV-6, HHV-7, and Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) in cervical lesions were unclear due to the limited number of studies. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided evidence that HHVs infection as a whole increase the risk of CC incidence. In addition, some types of HHVs such as EBV and HSV-2 may serve as potential targets in the development of new interventions or therapeutic strategies for cervical lesions.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.