4.5 Review

The Prevalence of Human Papillomavirus in Ovarian Cancer A Systematic Review

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages 437-441

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e318280f3e0

Keywords

HPV; Meta-analyses; Ovarian cancer; Prevalence; Systematic review

Funding

  1. University of Southern Santa Catarina

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) in ovarian cancer. Methods: A comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, LILACS, Grey literature and EMBASE was performed for articles published from January 1990 to March 2012. The following MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms were searched: ovarian tumor'' or ovarian cancers'' and HPV'' or human papillomavirus.'' Included were case-control and cross-sectional studies, prospective or retrospective, that evaluated clinical ovarian cancer and provided a clear description of the use of in situ hybridization, Southern blot hybridization, and polymerase chain reaction. The statistical analysis was performed using REVMAN 5.0. Results: In total, 24 primary studies were included in this meta-analysis. Studies from 11 countries on 3 continents contained data on HPV and ovarian cancer, including 889 subjects. Overall, the HPV prevalence in patients with ovarian cancer was 17.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.0%-20.0%). Human papillomavirus prevalence ranged from 4.0% (95% CI, 1.7%-6.3%) in Europe to 31.4% (95% CI, 26.9%-35.9%) in Asia. An aggregate of 4 case-control studies from Asia showed an odds ratio of 2.48 (95% CI, 0.64-9.57). Conclusions: We found a high prevalence of HPV-positive DNA in ovarian cancer cases, but the role of HPV in ovarian cancer remains inconclusive. Further studies are needed to control case to answer this question.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available