1 Introduction

Cervical cancer is a significant global health issue, ranking as the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide. Human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18 are the most prevalent and high-risk strains associated with cervical cancer, accounting for approximately 70-80% of cases (Vidal et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2014). These HPV types are known for their ability to integrate into the host genome, a critical step in the progression from infection to malignancy (Lagström et al., 2020). Despite the widespread prevalence of HPV infections, only a small fraction progress to cancer, suggesting that additional genetic and environmental factors play a role in carcinogenesis (Lagström et al., 2020; Gameiro et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2024).

The genetic variability within HPV16 and HPV18 significantly impacts their oncogenic potential. Variants within these types are classified into different lineages and sublineages based on single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and other genetic markers. For instance, HPV16 variants are categorized into lineages A, B, C, and D, with lineage A being the most common globally (Vidal et al., 2016). Similarly, HPV18 variants are divided into lineages A, B, and C, with distinct geographical distributions and oncogenic potentials (Chen et al., 2014). Studies have shown that specific variants of HPV16 and HPV18 are associated with different risks of cancer progression. For example, the T350G polymorphism in the E6 gene of HPV16 has been linked to variations in disease outcomes and immune responses (Gameiro et al., 2023). Additionally, the integration of HPV DNA into the host genome, particularly in or near cancer-related genes, is a critical event in cervical carcinogenesis. The APOBEC3 enzyme-induced mutations and chromosomal integration sites further contribute to the genetic diversity and oncogenicity of these HPV types (Lagström et al., 2020).

This study elucidates the oncogenic mechanisms of HPV16 and HPV18 variants and their clinical significance in cervical cancer. By analyzing the genetic diversity, integration patterns, and mutation profiles of these HPV types, we seek to identify specific variants that confer higher risks of cancer progression. This knowledge is crucial for developing targeted diagnostic tools, personalized treatment strategies, and effective vaccination programs. Understanding the genetic variability and integration profiles of HPV16 and HPV18 will also provide insights into the molecular pathways involved in cervical carcinogenesis. This study has the potential to inform public health policies and improve the management and prevention of cervical cancer, ultimately reducing the disease burden globally.

2 Genetic Variability of HPV16/18 in Cervical Cancer

2.1 Types and classification of HPV16/18 variants

Human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18 are the most prevalent high-risk HPV types associated with cervical cancer. These types exhibit significant genetic variability, which can be classified into different lineages and sublineages based on phylogenetic analysis. For HPV16, the major lineages are A, B, C, and D, with further sublineages such as A1, A2, A3, and A4. Similarly, HPV18 is classified into lineages A, B, and C, with sublineages within each major lineage (Vidal et al., 2016). The classification of these variants is typically based on sequencing specific regions of the viral genome, such as the long control region (LCR) and the E6 gene (Guo et al., 2024). For instance, in a study of Brazilian women with invasive cervical cancer, HPV16 variants were predominantly from lineage A, followed by lineages D, B, and C. HPV18 variants were mainly from lineage A, with a smaller proportion from lineage B (Vidal et al., 2016). Another study in Galicia, Spain, found that HPV16 lineage A was the most common, followed by lineages D, B, and C, while HPV18 variants were primarily from lineage A (Pérez et al., 2014).

These classifications are crucial as different lineages and sublineages have been associated with varying risks of progression to cervical cancer. For example, the European (EUR) lineage of HPV16, particularly the EUR-350G variant, has been linked to a higher risk of cervical cancer in certain populations (Cornet et al., 2012). Understanding the distribution and classification of these variants helps in identifying populations at higher risk and tailoring preventive measures accordingly.

2.2 Mechanisms of genetic variation in HPV16/18

The genetic variation in HPV16 and HPV18 is driven by several mechanisms, including point mutations, insertions, deletions, and recombination events. One of the key mechanisms is the action of the host's APOBEC3 enzymes, which induce cytosine-to-uracil deamination, leading to mutations in the viral genome. This process has been observed to contribute to the genetic diversity of HPV16, particularly in the non-coding region (NCR) and the E6 gene. Chromosomal integration is another significant mechanism contributing to genetic variation. Integration of HPV DNA into the host genome can lead to disruptions in viral genes and the creation of novel viral-host fusion transcripts. This process is more frequently observed in HPV18 compared to HPV16, with integration events often occurring near cancer-related genes, thereby promoting carcinogenesis (Lagström et al., 2020).

Minor nucleotide variations (MNVs) also play a role in the genetic diversity of HPV16 and HPV18. These variations can occur throughout the viral genome and have been associated with different stages of cervical disease. For instance, specific MNVs in the E6 and E7 genes of HPV16 have been linked to higher grades of cervical lesions and increased cancer risk (Zhou et al., 2019). Overall, the genetic variation in HPV16 and HPV18 is a result of complex interactions between viral replication mechanisms and host cellular processes. These variations can influence the virus's ability to evade the immune system, persist in the host, and progress to cancer.

2.3 Prevalence of HPV16/18 variants in different populations

The prevalence of HPV16 and HPV18 variants varies significantly across different geographical regions and populations. Studies have shown that certain lineages and sublineages are more common in specific regions, which can influence the local epidemiology of cervical cancer. In a multicenter study involving samples from Europe, Central Asia, and South/Central America, the distribution of HPV16 variants showed notable differences. In Europe and Central Asia, the EUR-350G variant was underrepresented in cervical cancer cases, while in South/Central America, it was overrepresented, indicating a population-dependent risk associated with this variant (Cornet et al., 2012). Similarly, HPV18 variants also showed regional differences, with lineages B and C being more prevalent in Africa, while lineage A was more common in other regions (Chen et al., 2014).

In China, a study on HPV18 genetic variability found that all detected variants belonged to lineage A, with no presence of lineages B or C. This study highlighted the predominance of sublineage A1 in the Taizhou region, Southeast China (Xu et al., 2018). In contrast, a study in Galicia, Spain, reported a higher prevalence of HPV16 lineage A and HPV18 lineage A, with lineage D of HPV16 being associated with an increased risk of high-grade cervical lesions and invasive cancer (Pérez et al., 2014). These findings underscore the importance of understanding the regional distribution of HPV variants to develop targeted screening and vaccination programs. The prevalence of specific variants can inform public health strategies and improve the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing the burden of cervical cancer.

3 Molecular Mechanisms of HPV16/18 Specific Variants in Oncogenesis

Human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18 are the most common high-risk HPVs associated with cervical cancer. The oncogenic potential of these viruses is primarily attributed to the E6 and E7 oncoproteins, which interfere with various cellular processes to promote malignant transformation.

3.1 Effects of E6/E7 variants on cell cycle regulation

The E6 and E7 oncoproteins of HPV16 and HPV18 play crucial roles in disrupting normal cell cycle regulation, a key step in oncogenesis. E7, in particular, is known to maintain cell cycle competence in differentiating keratinocytes by interacting with numerous host factors to manipulate gene expression patterns. E7 achieves this by binding to and degrading the retinoblastoma protein (pRb), thereby releasing E2F transcription factors that drive the expression of genes required for S-phase entry and DNA replication. This disruption of the pRb pathway leads to uncontrolled cell proliferation, a hallmark of cancer.

Moreover, specific variants of E6 and E7 have been shown to have distinct effects on cell cycle regulation. For instance, the HPV16 Asian variant E6D25E exhibits unique proteomic patterns that correlate with enhanced cell transformation and suppression of the innate immune response (Chopjitt et al., 2016). This variant, like the prototype E6, degrades p53 and suppresses p21 induction, but it also modulates additional cellular proteins involved in cell cycle regulation and immune signaling, thereby contributing to its oncogenic potential.

3.2 Impact on DNA damage and repair pathways

HPV16 and HPV18 oncoproteins also interfere with the host's DNA damage response (DDR) and repair mechanisms, further promoting genomic instability and cancer progression. The E6 and E7 proteins of HPV16 have been shown to globally hijack host DNA damage repair pathways, increasing cellular sensitivity to DNA repair inhibitors and enhancing the efficacy of radiotherapy. E6 and E7 interact with multiple DDR proteins, such as CHEK2, ERCC3, and XRCC6, altering their stability and subcellular localization, which compromises the host's ability to repair DNA damage effectively (Bruyère et al., 2023).

Additionally, HPV16 E7 has been found to delay the repair of DNA damage by increasing the retention of γ-H2AX nuclear foci and decreasing sublethal DNA damage repair (Park et al., 2014). This delay is associated with the induction of Rad51, a protein involved in homologous recombination repair, suggesting that E7 manipulates DDR pathways to favor viral replication and persistence, ultimately contributing to oncogenesis.

3.3 Immune evasion mechanisms of HPV16/18 variants

Immune evasion is another critical aspect of HPV16/18 oncogenesis. The E6 and E7 oncoproteins modulate host immune responses to create an environment conducive to viral persistence and tumor development. For example, the HPV16 Asian variant E6D25E has been shown to impair immune responses by targeting specific cellular proteins involved in TLR signaling and cell transformation (Chopjitt et al., 2016). This variant's ability to modulate the host proteome differently from the prototype E6 highlights the importance of specific viral variants in immune evasion.

Furthermore, HPV16 E7 has been implicated in the regulation of immune-related genes. E7 can alter the expression of genes involved in immune regulation, growth factor signaling, and other pathways, thereby promoting immune evasion and persistence. These alterations in gene expression patterns help the virus evade detection and destruction by the host immune system, facilitating long-term infection and increasing the risk of cancer development (Dust et al., 2022).

4 Clinical Significance of HPV16/18 Variants in Cervical Cancer

4.1 Prognostic value of specific variants

HPV16 and HPV18 are the most prevalent high-risk human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer, accounting for about 70% of cases worldwide. These types exhibit significant genetic diversity, with multiple variants showing different oncogenic potentials and clinical outcomes. Understanding the clinical significance of these variants is crucial for improving patient management, prognosis, and vaccine design. The prognostic value of HPV16 and HPV18 variants in cervical cancer has been well-documented in recent studies. Certain variants are associated with a higher risk of progression to invasive cancer and poorer clinical outcomes. For example, HPV16 variants from the D lineage have been linked to a more aggressive disease course and earlier onset of cervical cancer compared to the A lineage variants (Vidal et al., 2016). Moreover, the integration of HPV DNA into the host genome, a hallmark of high-risk HPV infections, varies among different variants. This integration event is significantly more frequent in HPV18 infections, with a prevalence of about 59%, compared to 13% for HPV16, and it is often located near oncogenes, suggesting a higher potential for malignant transformation (Lagström et al., 2021).

Additionally, minor nucleotide variations in the E6 and E7 oncogenes of HPV16 have been associated with differential responses to treatment. The C749T mutation in the E7 gene, for example, has been found to be more common in cervical cancer cases than in non-cancerous controls, suggesting its potential as a prognostic biomarker (Zhou et al., 2019). These findings underscore the importance of variant-specific analysis in predicting disease progression and tailoring treatment strategies.

4.2 Association with disease progression and severity

The association between HPV16/18 variants and disease severity is influenced by several factors, including viral integration patterns, immune response evasion, and interaction with host genetic factors. Studies have shown that the presence of HPV16 D2/D3 sublineages is associated with a higher incidence of high-grade lesions and cervical cancer compared to other sublineages (Mirabello et al., 2016). Furthermore, specific variants within these lineages, such as those with APOBEC3 mutation signatures, exhibit a higher mutation rate in the viral genome, leading to increased genomic instability and carcinogenic potential (Lagström et al., 2021).

HPV18 variants also demonstrate distinct pathogenic characteristics. For instance, studies have highlighted the role of the A3 sublineage in persistent infections, which is strongly associated with the progression to cervical cancer (van der Weele et al., 2018). This variant-specific pathogenicity necessitates the development of diagnostic tools capable of detecting and differentiating these variants to better assess patient risk and tailor follow-up protocols accordingly.

4.3 Implications for vaccine design and efficacy

The diversity of HPV16 and HPV18 variants poses challenges for vaccine design and efficacy. Current vaccines, such as Gardasil and Cervarix, provide broad protection against the most common high-risk HPV types, including the most prevalent variants of HPV16 and HPV18. However, emerging evidence suggests that these vaccines may be less effective against certain non-vaccine variants. For example, the reduced efficacy of existing vaccines against HPV16 D2/D3 variants has been observed in some populations, potentially due to differences in the E6 and E7 oncoproteins targeted by the vaccines (Lou et al., 2020).

To address this issue, future vaccine development should focus on incorporating additional epitopes from diverse variants, particularly those with higher oncogenic potential. This approach could improve the coverage and efficacy of vaccines across different populations. Furthermore, therapeutic vaccines targeting variant-specific E6 and E7 oncoproteins are being explored as potential adjuncts to enhance the effectiveness of existing prophylactic vaccines and reduce the burden of HPV-associated cancers.

5 HPV16/18 Variants and Resistance to Treatment

The genetic variations in HPV16 and HPV18 can significantly impact the effectiveness of various treatment modalities for cervical cancer, including chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Several studies have demonstrated that these variants may influence treatment resistance, leading to differential clinical outcomes. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for developing more effective therapeutic strategies.

5.1 Impact on chemotherapy and radiotherapy response

HPV16 and HPV18 variants have been associated with varied responses to radiotherapy and chemotherapy in cervical cancer patients. For instance, research has shown that the expression of DNA repair genes differs between HPV16 and HPV18 positive cervical cancers, which may result in different outcomes following radiation therapy. Specifically, genes such as TP53BP1 and MCM9 are upregulated in HPV18 positive cancers, leading to increased resistance to radiation therapy due to enhanced DNA repair capacity (Sample, 2020).

In another study, mutations in the HPV16 E2 gene, induced by radiotherapy, were linked to altered responses in cervical carcinomas. These mutations, especially those in the carboxy-terminal and amino-terminal regions of the E2 gene, were more prevalent in post-radiotherapy tumor samples, suggesting a possible mechanism by which these cancers develop resistance to radiotherapy (Kahla et al., 2018).

5.2 Mechanisms of resistance related to genetic variants

The resistance mechanisms in HPV16 and HPV18 variants are multifactorial, involving alterations in viral gene expression and host cell interactions. Studies have indicated that the integration of HPV DNA into the host genome can disrupt key regulatory genes, enhancing the cancer cells' ability to evade therapy. For instance, HPV18 positive cancers have been shown to rely on non-homologous end joining and homologous recombination pathways for DNA repair, making them less susceptible to radiation-induced damage (Sample, 2020).

Additionally, specific nucleotide variations in HPV16, such as those induced by the APOBEC3 enzyme, contribute to the carcinogenesis process by increasing mutation rates, particularly in the non-coding regions of the viral genome. This could potentially lead to increased resistance to chemotherapy by enhancing the adaptability of the viral-infected cells (Lagström et al., 2020).

5.3 Strategies to overcome variant-induced resistance

To overcome resistance induced by HPV16/18 variants, several strategies are being explored. One promising approach is the use of personalized medicine techniques that tailor treatment based on the specific HPV variant present in the tumor. For instance, vaccines targeting the E6 and E7 proteins of HPV16 and HPV18, combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors like PD-1 antibodies, have shown enhanced therapeutic responses in preclinical models (Peng et al., 2021).

Moreover, identifying patients with specific resistance-associated mutations can help in selecting more effective treatment combinations, such as the use of DNA repair inhibitors alongside conventional radiotherapy, to sensitize resistant tumors (Sample, 2020). This precision approach could significantly improve outcomes in patients with resistant cervical cancers.

6 Case Studies of HPV16/18 Variants in Cervical Cancer Patients

6.1 Analysis of specific variant cases

The study of HPV16 and HPV18 variants in cervical cancer patients provides crucial insights into how genetic variations can affect disease progression, treatment response, and clinical outcomes. Case studies focusing on different populations and genetic backgrounds highlight the importance of understanding these variants for personalized treatment and prognosis. Several studies have documented the impact of specific HPV16 and HPV18 variants on cervical cancer. For instance, in a Han Chinese population, researchers identified that the As variant of HPV16 was predominant in cervical cancer patients, with significant differences in the distribution of E2 gene variations between case and control groups. Variants such as the T3575G (S274A) in the EUR lineage were found to be more frequent in cancer cases, suggesting a potential role in oncogenesis (Dai et al., 2018). Similarly, another study conducted in Argentina showed that HPV16 variants from lineage D were significantly associated with high-grade lesions and invasive cervical cancer, compared to lineage A variants. This suggests that lineage D may carry a higher oncogenic potential, which could influence clinical management strategies (Badano et al., 2015).

Moreover, research involving locally advanced cervical cancer patients in Japan found that non-HPV16/18 genotypes were associated with worse clinical outcomes. The study also highlighted that TP53 mutations were linked with poor progression-free survival, suggesting that these genetic alterations may serve as prognostic markers for treatment response (Kuno et al., 2019).

6.2 Correlation with clinical outcomes

The correlation between specific HPV variants and clinical outcomes has been well-documented. Persistent HPV16/18 infection was associated with higher relapse rates and worse survival outcomes in cervical cancer patients treated with radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. A study demonstrated that patients with persistent HPV infection had a significantly higher overall and loco-regional relapse rate compared to those who cleared the infection, indicating that persistent infection is a poor prognostic marker (Mahantshetty et al., 2017).

In another study, researchers analyzed HPV16 and HPV18 E6 and E7 gene variations in a Chinese population. They found that the C749T (S63F) mutation in the E7 gene was significantly associated with cervical cancer, not only in the A4 sub-lineage but also in the A1-A3 sub-lineages, suggesting a broad impact of this mutation on clinical outcomes (Zhou et al., 2019).

6.3 Implications for personalized treatment

Understanding the specific HPV variants present in a patient can significantly influence treatment decisions and prognostic evaluations. For instance, the identification of high-risk variants like the D2 lineage of HPV16, which is associated with an increased risk of early onset cervical cancer, may prompt earlier and more aggressive intervention strategies. On the other hand, patients with less aggressive variants might benefit from more conservative treatment approaches to avoid overtreatment and associated complications (Alfaro et al., 2016).

Moreover, personalized vaccination strategies targeting specific HPV variants could be developed to prevent infections with the most oncogenic variants. In the therapeutic setting, identifying variant-specific oncogenic mechanisms can lead to targeted therapies that disrupt the interactions between viral oncoproteins and host cell machinery, thereby improving clinical outcomes (Mirabello et al., 2016).

7 Diagnostic and Prognostic Tools for HPV16/18 Variants

7.1 Genetic testing and screening methods

Genetic testing for HPV16/18 variants primarily relies on advanced molecular techniques such as Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS), real-time PCR, and isothermal amplification methods. NGS has emerged as a robust tool for detecting HPV integration sites, minor nucleotide variations, and intra-host variants, providing comprehensive insights into the genomic landscape of HPV16/18 positive cervical lesions. For example, studies using NGS have identified specific integration hotspots in the human genome associated with cancer-related genes, highlighting their role in disease progression (Meng et al., 2019).

Recombinase Polymerase Amplification (RPA) is another innovative method developed for rapid detection of HPV16/18 DNA. This technique allows for efficient amplification at low temperatures and has demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity in clinical samples, making it suitable for point-of-care applications in resource-limited settings (Ma et al., 2017). Moreover, targeted sequencing of specific viral regions, such as the E6/E7 oncogenes, enables the identification of oncogenic variants and helps in stratifying patients based on their risk of disease progression. Techniques like droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) are used to quantify circulating HPV DNA, serving as a non-invasive biomarker for monitoring treatment response and detecting early relapse (Jeannot et al., 2021).

7.2 Biomarkers for variant detection

Several biomarkers have been identified for the detection and monitoring of HPV16/18 variants. Among these, the p16 protein and the viral E6/E7 oncoproteins are prominent markers. The expression of p16 is considered a surrogate marker for transforming HPV infections and is associated with high-grade lesions and cervical cancer. Studies have shown that p16 overexpression correlates with better survival outcomes in HPV-associated cervical cancer, suggesting its potential use as a prognostic marker (da Mata et al., 2021).

Circulating HPV DNA (ctDNA), particularly the E7 gene, has also been identified as a sensitive marker for detecting residual disease and predicting relapse. The use of digital PCR for quantifying ctDNA levels has shown that persistent ctDNA post-treatment is associated with a higher risk of relapse, making it a valuable tool for patient monitoring (Jeannot et al., 2021).

Methylation patterns in both the host and viral genomes have been explored as biomarkers for detecting and predicting disease progression. For instance, hypermethylation of host cell gene promoters such as CCNA1 and CDH1, and specific CpG sites in the HPV16 genome, have been associated with increased severity of cervical lesions and cancer (Gašperov et al., 2015).

7.3 Predictive models for clinical outcomes

Predictive models incorporating genetic and clinical factors are crucial for personalized treatment strategies. Recent studies have developed models that integrate genetic alterations, such as TP53 mutations and HPV variant status, with clinical parameters like tumor size and stage. These models have been effective in predicting progression-free survival and overall survival in cervical cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy (Kuno et al., 2021).

Furthermore, machine learning approaches are being applied to large datasets to develop predictive algorithms that can classify patients based on their risk of treatment failure or recurrence. For example, predictive models using NGS data have demonstrated the ability to identify high-risk patients based on specific HPV integration patterns and variant profiles, providing a personalized risk assessment tool for clinical decision-making (Meng et al., 2019). Overall, the integration of genetic testing, biomarker analysis, and predictive modeling offers a comprehensive approach to managing HPV16/18-associated cervical cancer, enabling more precise diagnostics and personalized treatment strategies.

8 Future Directions in Research on HPV16/18 Variants

8.1 Exploration of new variant types

The identification and characterization of novel HPV16 and HPV18 variants are crucial for understanding their role in cervical carcinogenesis. Recent studies have highlighted the existence of unique variant lineages and sublineages that are associated with different oncogenic potentials and geographic distributions. For example, research conducted in northeastern Argentina identified that lineage D of HPV16 is more frequently associated with high-grade lesions and cervical cancer compared to lineage A, suggesting a potentially higher oncogenic risk (Badano et al., 2015). Additionally, the identification of minor nucleotide variations caused by the APOBEC3 enzyme and their association with different lesion severities indicates that these variants may play a role in the progression to malignancy (Lagström et al., 2020).

Future research should focus on conducting large-scale genomic studies across diverse populations to identify novel variants and understand their global distribution. The use of advanced sequencing technologies, such as whole-genome sequencing and single-cell sequencing, can provide a more comprehensive understanding of HPV variant evolution and their interactions with host genomes. Such studies could reveal new biomarkers for early detection and more precise risk stratification.

8.2 Integration of genomics and immunotherapy

The integration of genomic information with immunotherapeutic approaches represents a promising area for the personalized treatment of HPV-associated cervical cancer. Immunotherapy, particularly the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis, has shown promising results in treating recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. However, the response to immunotherapy can vary based on the specific HPV variant present. For instance, variants associated with higher mutation burdens may elicit stronger immune responses, making them more susceptible to immunotherapeutic interventions (Lou et al., 2020).

Future research should focus on identifying specific genetic and epigenetic alterations associated with HPV variants that influence immune evasion mechanisms. Understanding these interactions can lead to the development of variant-specific therapeutic vaccines or combination therapies that enhance the effectiveness of existing immunotherapies. Additionally, the integration of tumor mutational burden and immune microenvironment profiling can help in predicting patient responses to immunotherapy.

8.3 Development of next-generation vaccines

Current HPV vaccines, such as Gardasil and Cervarix, provide effective protection against the most common high-risk HPV types, including HPV16 and HPV18. However, the emergence of non-vaccine HPV types and variant lineages with distinct oncogenic potentials poses a challenge for complete eradication of HPV-related cancers. Recent studies have shown that variants such as HPV16 lineage D have different immunogenic profiles, which may reduce the efficacy of current vaccines (Jendoubi-Ferchichi et al., 2018).

Future vaccine development should aim at creating broad-spectrum vaccines that target a wider range of HPV variants and lineages. This could involve the inclusion of additional HPV genotypes and variant-specific epitopes to enhance cross-protection. Additionally, therapeutic vaccines targeting the E6 and E7 oncoproteins of specific HPV variants are under investigation. These vaccines, when used in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors, could provide a powerful tool for both preventing and treating HPV-associated cancers. Overall, advancing our understanding of HPV16 and HPV18 variants and their interactions with the host immune system will be critical for developing next-generation vaccines and personalized therapeutic strategies.

9 Concluding Remarks

The study of HPV16 and HPV18 variants has significantly advanced our understanding of cervical cancer pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment. This study summarizes the key findings from recent research, discusses their clinical implications, and offers recommendations for future studies to address existing gaps and improve patient outcomes. Recent studies have highlighted the diversity of HPV16 and HPV18 variants and their distinct roles in cervical carcinogenesis. Variants from different lineages, such as HPV16 D2/D3, have been shown to have higher oncogenic potential and are more frequently associated with invasive cancers compared to other lineages like A1/A2. Additionally, intra-type diversity caused by APOBEC3-mediated mutations and genomic integration has been linked to increased severity of cervical lesions and cancer development. The presence of these variants, along with persistent infection, has been associated with poor clinical outcomes, such as higher rates of relapse and lower survival rates in patients undergoing radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy.

The identification of high-risk HPV16 and HPV18 variants has important implications for the clinical management of cervical cancer. These variants can serve as biomarkers for risk stratification, enabling personalized screening and treatment strategies. For example, the detection of specific variants associated with a higher risk of progression to invasive cancer can prompt more aggressive treatment and closer monitoring. Moreover, integrating variant-specific information with current therapeutic approaches, such as immunotherapy and targeted therapies, could improve treatment efficacy and reduce adverse outcomes. Variant-specific vaccines are also being explored as a way to enhance protection against the most oncogenic forms of HPV.

Future research should focus on several key areas to address the remaining challenges in the study and management of HPV16/18 variants. First, there is a need for large-scale genomic studies across diverse populations to identify novel variants and understand their global distribution and clinical impact. Second, research should aim to integrate genomic data with immune profiling to elucidate the mechanisms of immune evasion and resistance associated with specific HPV variants. This could lead to the development of new immunotherapeutic strategies and personalized vaccines. Lastly, longitudinal studies that track the evolution of HPV variants over time in response to vaccination and therapeutic interventions are crucial for monitoring the effectiveness of these strategies and adapting them as needed. In conclusion, continued research on HPV16 and HPV18 variants is essential to fully understand their role in cervical cancer and to develop more effective diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive strategies. By focusing on these key areas, we can improve patient outcomes and ultimately reduce the global burden of HPV-associated cancers.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank two anonymous peer reviewers for their suggestions on my manuscript.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

The author affirms that this research was conducted without any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

Alfaro A.M.H., Juárez-Torres E., Medina-Martínez I., Mateos-Guerrero N., Bautista-Huerta M., Román-Bassaure E., Villegas-Sepúlveda N., and Berumen J., 2016, Different association of human papillomavirus 16 variants with early and late presentation of cervical cancer, PLoS ONE, 11(12): e0169315.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169315

PMID: 28036379 PMCID: PMC5201311

Badano I., Totaro M., Culasso A., Sanabria D.J., Schurr T., Balette I.C., Roisman A., Basiletti J., Picconi M.A., Campos R.H., and Liotta D.J., 2015, Genetic characterization and clinical implications of human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV16) variants from northeastern Argentina, Infection, Genetics and Evolution, 29: 103-109.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2014.11.013

Bruyère D., Roncarati P., Lebeau A., Lerho T., Poulain F., Hendrick E., Pilard C., Reynders C., Ancion M., Luyckx M., Renard M., Jacob Y., Twizere J., Peiffer R., Peulen O., Delvenne P., Hubert P., McBride A., Gillet N., Masson M., and Herfs M., 2023, Human papillomavirus E6/E7 oncoproteins promote radiotherapy-mediated tumor suppression by globally hijacking host DNA damage repair, Theranostics, 13: 1130-1149.

https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.78091

PMID: 36793865 PMCID: PMC9925306

Chen A., Gheit T., Franceschi S., Tommasino M., and Clifford G., 2014, Human papillomavirus 18 genetic variation and cervical cancer risk worldwide, Journal of Virology, 89: 10680-10687.

https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01747-15

PMID: 26269181 PMCID: PMC4580183

Chopjitt P., Pientong C., Sunthamala N., Kongyingyoes B., Haonon O., Boonmars T., Kikawa S., Nakahara T., Kiyono T., and Ekalaksananan T., 2016, E6D25E, HPV16 Asian variant shows specific proteomic pattern correlating in cells transformation and suppressive innate immune response, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 478(1): 417-423.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2016.07.025

PMID: 27392712

Cornet I., Gheit T., Iannacone M., Vignat J., Sylla B., Mistro A., Franceschi S., Tommasino M., and Clifford G., 2012, HPV16 genetic variation and the development of cervical cancer worldwide, British Journal of Cancer, 108: 240-244.

https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.508

PMID: 23169278 PMCID: PMC3553516

da Mata S., Ferreira J., Nicolás I., Esteves S., Esteves G., Lérias S., Silva F., Saco A., Cochicho D., Cunha M., Del Pino M., Ordi J., and Félix A., 2021, P16 and HPV genotype significance in HPV-associated cervical cancer-a large cohort of two tertiary referral centers, International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22(5): 2294.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22052294

PMID: 33669021 PMCID: PMC7956391

Dai S., Yao Y., Yan Z., Zhou Z., Shi L., Wang X., Sun L., Zhang R., and Yao Y., 2018, The association of human papillomavirus type 16 E2 variations with cervical cancer in a Han Chinese population, Infection, Genetics and Evolution, 64: 241-248.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2018.07.002

PMID: 30008422

Dust K., Carpenter M., Chen J., Grant C., McCorrister S., Westmacott G., and Severini A., 2022, Human papillomavirus 16 E6 and E7 oncoproteins alter the abundance of proteins associated with DNA damage response, Immune Signaling and Epidermal Differentiation, Viruses, 14(8): 1764.

https://doi.org/10.3390/v14081764

PMID: 36016386 PMCID: PMC9415472

Gameiro S., Salnikov M., Zeng P., Barrett J., Nichols A., and Mymryk J., 2023, HPV16 intratypic variants in head and neck cancers: a north american perspective, Viruses, 15(12): 2411.

https://doi.org/10.3390/v15122411

PMID: 38140652 PMCID: PMC10747106

Gašperov N.M., Sabol I., Planinić P., Grubišić G., Fistonić I., Ćorušić A., and Grce M., 2015, Methylated host cell gene promoters and human papillomavirus type 16 and 18 predicting cervical lesions and cancer, PLoS ONE, 10(6): e0129452.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129452

PMID: 26057381 PMCID: PMC4461273

Guo S., Gu D.N., and Chen X., 2024, Development and influencing factors of female cancers, Cancer Genetics and Epigenetics, 12(1): 27-36.

https://doi.org/10.5376/cge.2024.12.0004

Jeannot E., Latouche A., Bonneau C., Calméjane M.A., Beaufort C., Ruigrok-Ritstier K., and Scholl S., 2021, Circulating HPV DNA as a marker for early detection of relapse in patients with cervical cancer, Clinical Cancer Research, 27(21): 5869-5877.

https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-0625

PMID: 34210686 PMCID: PMC9401545

Jendoubi-Ferchichi M., Satouri L., Ghoul F., Malek-Mellouli M., Derbel A.M., Makni M., Reziga H., Baba A., Zili M., Segondy M., and Khélifa R., 2018, Phylogeny and classification of human papillomavirus (HPV)16 and HPV18 variants based on E6 and L1 genes in Tunisian women with cervical lesions, Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 19(12): 3361-3366.

https://doi.org/10.31557/APJCP.2018.19.12.3361

PMID: 30583341 PMCID: PMC6428538

Kahla S., Hammami S., Kochbati L., Chanoufi M.B., and Oueslati R., 2018, HPV16 E2 variants correlated with radiotherapy treatment and biological significance in cervical cell carcinoma, Infection, Genetics and Evolution, 65: 238-243.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2018.08.001

Kuno I., Takayanagi D., Asami Y., Murakami N., Matsuda M., Shimada Y., Hirose S., Kato M.K., Komatsu M., Hamamoto R., Okuma K., Kohno T., Itami J., Yoshida H., Shiraishi K., and Kato T., 2021, TP53 mutants and non-HPV16/18 genotypes are poor prognostic factors for concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer, Scientific Reports, 11(1): 1-10.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98527-2

PMID: 34584128 PMCID: PMC8478905

Lagström S., Løvestad A.H., Umu S., Ambur O., Nygård M., Rounge T., and Christiansen I.K., 2020, HPV16 and HPV18 type-specific APOBEC3 and integration profiles in different diagnostic categories of cervical samples, Tumour Virus Research, 12: 200221.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvr.2021.200221

PMID: 34175494 PMCID: PMC8287217

Lou H., Boland J., Torres-Gonzalez E., Albanez A., Zhou W., Steinberg M., Diaw L., Mitchell J., Roberson D., Cullen M., Garland L., Bass S., Burk R.D., Yeager M., Wentzensen N., Schiffman M., Freites E.A., Gharzouzi E., Mirabello L., and Dean M., 2020, The D2 and D3 sublineages of human papilloma virus 16-positive cervical cancer in Guatemala differ in integration rate and age of diagnosis, Cancer Research, 80(17): 3803-3809.

https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-20-0029

PMID: 32631904 PMCID: PMC7501218

Ma B., Fang J., Wang Y., He H., Dai M., Lin W., Su W., and Zhang M., 2017, Isothermal method of a recombinase polymerase amplification assay for the detection of most common high-risk human papillomavirus type 16 and type 18 DNA, Clinical Laboratory, 63(1): 27-38.

https://doi.org/10.7754/Clin.Lab.2016.160325

Mahantshetty U., Teni T., Naga P., Hotwani C., Umesh S., Kannan S., Hande V., Pawar S., Engineer R., Chopra S., Deodhar K., Maheshwari A., Gurram L., Gupta S., and Shrivastava S., 2017, Impact of HPV 16/18 infection on clinical outcomes in locally advanced cervical cancers treated with radical radio (chemo) therapy-a prospective observational study, Gynecologic Oncology, 148(2): 299-304.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.11.034

PMID: 29203175

Meng B., Quan L., Yang W., Lang J., Chen L., Dong R., and Tian G., 2019, Discovering HPV16 and HPV18 infection status and cancer gene variations in cervical cancer patient specimens by using Next-generation sequencing, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 37(15 Suppl): e13040.

https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_SUPPL.E13040

Mirabello L., Yeager M., Cullen M., Boland J., Chen Z., Wentzensen N., Zhang X., Yu K., Yang Q., Mitchell J., Roberson D., Bass S., Xiao Y., Burdett L., Raine-Bennett T., Lorey T., Castle P.E., Burk R.D., and Schiffman M., 2016, HPV16 sublineage associations with histology-specific cancer risk using HPV whole-genome sequences in 3200 women, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 108(9): djw100.

https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw100

PMID: 27130930 PMCID: PMC5939630

Park J., Nickel K., Torres A., Lee D., Lambert P., and Kimple R., 2014, Human papillomavirus type 16 E7 oncoprotein causes a delay in repair of DNA damage, Radiotherapy and Oncology, 113(3): 337-344.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2014.08.026

PMID: 25216575 PMCID: PMC4268372

Peng S., Ferrall L., Gaillard S., Wang C., Chi W.Y., Huang C., Roden R.B.S., Wu T.C., Chang Y.N., and Hung C., 2021, Development of DNA vaccine targeting E6 and E7 proteins of human papillomavirus 16 (HPV16) and HPV18 for immunotherapy in combination with recombinant vaccinia boost and PD-1 antibody, mBio, 12: 03224-20.

https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.03224-20

PMID: 33468698 PMCID: PMC7845631

Pérez S., Cid A., Iñarrea A., Pato M., Lamas M., Couso B., Gil M., Álvarez M., Rey S., López-Miragaya I., Melón S., and Oña M., 2014, Prevalence of HPV 16 and HPV 18 lineages in galicia, Spain, PLoS ONE, 9(8): e104678.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104678

PMID: 25111834 PMCID: PMC4128731

Sample K., 2020, DNA repair gene expression is associated with differential prognosis between HPV16 and HPV18 positive cervical cancer patients following radiation therapy, Scientific Reports, 10(1): 2774.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59383-8

PMID: 32066835 PMCID: PMC7026103

van der Weele P., Meijer C., and King A., 2018, High whole-genome sequence diversity of human papillomavirus type 18 isolates, Viruses, 10(2): 68.

https://doi.org/10.3390/v10020068

PMID: 29414918 PMCID: PMC5850375

Vidal J.P., Felix S.P., Chaves C., Patury P., Franco V., de Morais E.A., de Carvalho N.A., Carvalho A.C., Almeida Neto O.F., Vieira L.M., Correa F.M., Martins L.F., Negrão A., de Almeida L.M., and Moreira M.A., 2016, Genetic diversity of HPV16 and HPV18 in Brazilian patients with invasive cervical cancer, Journal of Medical Virology, 88: 1279-1287.

https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.24458

PMID: 26694554

Wang R., Ding K., and Zhang J., 2024, The etiology and epidemiology exploration of cervical cancer, Cancer Genetics and Epigenetics, 12(1): 8-14

https://doi.org/10.5376/cge.2024.12.0002

Xu H., Zheng L., Lin A., Dong S., Chai Z., and Yan W., 2018, Human papillomavirus (HPV) 18 genetic variants and cervical cancer risk in Taizhou area, China, Gene, 647: 192-197.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2018.01.037

PMID: 29331480

Zhou Z., Yang H., Yang L., Yao Y., Dai S., Shi L., Li C., Yang L., Yan Z., and Yao Y., 2019, Human papillomavirus type 16 E6 and E7 gene variations associated with cervical cancer in a Han Chinese population, Infection, Genetics and Evolution, 73: 13-20.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2019.04.008

PMID: 30981880