Top

Published in:

01-02-2016 | Review

Determination of malignant potential of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia

Authors: E. Kudela, V. Holubekova, A. Farkasova, J. Danko

Published in: Tumor Biology | Issue 2/2016

Abstract

Basic diagnostic procedures in cervical cancer screening are able to set the diagnosis but they do not provide any information about the biological nature and behavior of lesions. The causal link of HPV infection and cervical cancer and discoveries of complex interactions between host and HPV genome opened new possibilities in molecular diagnostics. HPV DNA analysis, determination of viral load, detection of E6 and E7 mRNA transcripts, identifying of methylation profiles, genomic changes, miRNAs, and telomerase activity should be the right choice for exact diagnostics and prediction of behavior of premalignant lesions of the cervix. These findings set a completely new light not only in diagnostic but also in management and treatment of cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer.

Ferlay J. GLOBOCAN 2012. http://globocan.iarc.fr. Accessed 3 Dec 2015.

Snijders PJ, Steenbergen RD, Heideman DA, et al. HPV-mediated cervical carcinogenesis: concepts and clinical implications. J Pathol. 2006;208(2):152–64.CrossRefPubMed

Ostor AG. Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Pathol. 1993;12(2):186–92.CrossRef

Munk AC, Kruse AJ, van Diermen B, et al. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 lesions can regress. APMIS. 2007;115(12):1409–14.CrossRefPubMed

Ovestad IT, Gudlauqsson E, Skaland I, et al. Local immune response in the microenvironment of CIN2-3 with and without spontaneous regression. Mod Pathol. 2010;23(9):1231–40.CrossRefPubMed

Herbeck G. et al. Atlas kolposkopie. (Book in Czech) Praha: Maxdorf s.r.o; 2011.

Discacciati MG, da Silva ID, Villa LL, et al. Outcome of expectant management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 in women followed for three months. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;155(2):204–8.CrossRefPubMed

Guedes AC, Brenna SM, Coelho SA, et al. p16INK4a expression does not predict the outcome of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2007;17(5):1099–103.CrossRefPubMed

Nasiell K, Nasiell M, Vaclavinkova V, et al. Behavior of moderate cervical dysplasia during long-term follow-up. Obstet Gynecol. 1983;61(5):609–14.PubMed

10.

Castle PE, Schiffman M, Wheeler CM, et al. Evidence for frequent regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia-grade 2. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(1):18–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Wentzensen N, Walker J, Schiffman M, et al. Heterogenity of high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia related to HPV 16: implications for natural history and management. Int J Cancer. 2012;132(1):148–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Smith JS, Lindsay L, Hoots B, et al. Human papillomavirus type distribution in invasive cervical cancer and high-grade cervical lesions: a meta-analysis update. Int J of Cancer. 2007;121(3):621–32.CrossRef

13.

Jaisamrarn U, Castellsague X, Garland SM, et al. Natural history of progression of HPV infection to cervical lesion or clearance: analysis of the control arm of the large, randomized PATRICIA study. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e79260.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Schiffman M, Rodriguez AC, Chen Z, et al. A population-based prospective study of carcinogenic human papillomavirus variant lineages, viral persistence, and cervical neoplasia. Cancer Res. 2010;70(8):3159–69.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Chaturvedi AK, Katki HA, Hildesheim A, et al. Human papillomavirus infection with multiple types: pattern of coinfection and risk of cervical disease. J Infect Dis. 2011;203(7):910–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Thomsen LT, Frederiksen K, Munk C, et al. Long-term risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse according to high-risk human papillomavirus genotype and semi-quantitative viral load among 33,228 women with normal cervical cytology. Int J Cancer. 2015;137(1):193–203.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Lee CH, Peng CY, Li RN, et al. Risk evaluation for the development of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: development and validation of risk-scoring systems. Int J Cancer. 2015; 136(2):

18.

Burger EA, Kornor H, Klemp M, et al. HPV mRNA tests for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;120(3):430–8.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Monsonego J, Hudgens MG, Zerat L, et al. Risk assessment and clinical impact of liquid-based cytology, oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA and mRNA testing in primary cervical screening (the FASE study). Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125(1):175–80.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Wentzensen N, Sherman ME, Schiffman M, et al. Utility of methylation markers in cervical cancer early detection: appraisal of the state-of-the-science. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112(2):293–9.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Farkas SA, Milutin-Gasperov N, Grce M, et al. Genome-wide DNA methylation assay reveals novel candidate biomarker genes in cervical cancer. Epigenetics. 2013;8(11):1213–25.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Eijsink JJ, Yang N, Lendvai A, et al. Detection of cervical neoplasia by DNA methylation analysis in cervico-vaginal lavages, a feasibility study. Gynecol Oncol. 2011;120(2):280–3.CrossRefPubMed

23.

de Wilde J, Kooter J, Overmeer RM, et al. hTERT promoter activity and CpG methylation in HPV-induced carcinogenesis. BMC Cancer. 2010;271(10):1–14.

24.

Yin A, Zhang Q, Kong X, et al. JAM3 methylation status as a biomarker for diagnosis of preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions of the cervix. Oncotarget. 2015.

25.

Bird A. DNA methylation patterns and epigenetic memory. Genes Dev. 2002;16:16–21.CrossRef

26.

Kalantari M, Osann K, Calleja-Macias IE, et al. Methylation of human papillomavirus 16, 18, 31 and 45 L2 and L1 genes and the cellular DAPK gene: considerations for use as biomarkers of the progression of cervical neoplasia. Virology. 2014;448:314–21.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Kirchhoff M, Rose H, Petersen BL, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization reveals non-random chromosomal aberrations in early preinvasive cervical lesions. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2001;129(1):47–51.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Uhlik K, et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or other in situ hybridization (ISH) testing of uterine cervical cells to predict precancer and cancer. Technology assessment report. Project ID: CANC0511. 2013. Tufts Evidence-based Practice Center.

29.

Heselmeyer-Haddad K, Janz V, Castle PE, et al. Detection of genomic amplification of the human telomerase gene (TERC) in cytologic specimens as a genetic test for the diagnosis of cervical dysplasia. Am J Pathol. 2003;163:1405–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Heselmeyer-Haddad K, Sommerfeld K, White NM, et al. Genomic amplification of the human telomerase gene (TERC) in pap smears predicts the development of cervical cancer. Am J Pathol. 2005;166(4):1229–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Andersson S, Sowjanya P, Wangsa D, et al. Detection of genomic amplification of the human telomerase gene TERC, a potential marker for triage of women with HPV-positive, abnormal Pap smears. Am J Pathol. 2009;175(5):1831–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Kudela E, Farkasova A, Visnovsky J. Amplification of 3q26 and 5p15 regions in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014;93(10):997–1002.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Gimenes F, Souza RP, de Abreu AL, et al. Simultaneous detection of human papillomavirus integration and c-MYC gene amplification in cervical lesions: an emerging marker for the risk to progression. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015.

34.

Kuglik P, Kasikova K, Smetana J, et al. Molecular cytogenetic analyses of hTERC (3q26) and MYC (8q24) genes amplifications in correlation with oncogenic human papillomavirus infection in Czech patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical carcinomas. Neoplasma. 2015;62(1):130–9.CrossRefPubMed

35.

de Freitas AC, Coimbra EC, Gomes Leitao MC. Molecular targets of HPV oncoproteins: potentional biomarkers for cervical carcinogenesis. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014;1845(2):91–103.PubMed

36.

Deftereos G, Corrie SR, Feng Q, et al. Expression of mir-21 and mir-143 in cervical specimens ranging from histologically normal through to invasive cancer. PLoS One. 2011;6:e28423.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Li B, Hu Y, Ye F, et al. Reduced miR-34a expression in normal cervical tissues and cervical lesions with high-risk human papillomavirus infection. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20(4):597–604.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Determination of malignant potential of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
Authors: E. Kudela
V. Holubekova
A. Farkasova
J. Danko
Publication date: 01-02-2016
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Tumor Biology / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 1010-4283
Electronic ISSN: 1423-0380
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-015-4677-3

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

Low 25-OH vitamin D levels at time of diagnosis and recurrence of ovarian cancer

TRIM37 promoted the growth and migration of the pancreatic cancer cells

Cancer-associated fibroblasts promote angiogenesis in gastric cancer through galectin-1 expression

Prognostic values of Notch receptors in breast cancer

Overexpression of Gremlin promotes non-small cell lung cancer progression

The role of lysosome in cell death regulation

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer