The oncogenic role of human papillomavirus in breast cancer: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Human papillomavirus (HPV) has been increasingly implicated in the pathogenesis of breast cancer (BC), though its role remains controversial. Understanding HPV prevalence and genotype distribution across histological types and regions may clarify this potential association. Methods: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for studies published between January 1990 and April 2025. Eligible studies reported HPV prevalence in BC tissues stratified by histological classification. Non-English studies, reviews, and those lacking histological stratification were excluded. Data from 49 studies encompassing 4,173 BC cases were extracted. Pooled HPV prevalence and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses were performed by histology, geographic region, and HPV genotype (16/18). Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for cross-sectional studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for case-control designs. Results: The pooled prevalence of HPV in BC tissues was 23% (95% CI: 18-28%), highest in invasive ductal carcinoma (24%). HPV-positive individuals exhibited a 3.6-fold higher risk of developing BC (OR = 3.63, 95% CI: 2.33-5.64), with the strongest association in invasive lobular carcinoma (OR = 4.41). HPV-18 showed a more consistent correlation with BC than HPV-16. Regional variation was observed, with Asian populations showing higher HPV prevalence and stronger associations. Discussion: This meta-analysis suggests a significant association between HPV infection-particularly genotype 18-and breast cancer risk, especially in Asian regions and specific histological subtypes. These findings highlight the need for mechanistic studies and standardized molecular detection to elucidate the potential oncogenic role of HPV in breast tissue. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=1051960 identifier CRD420251051960.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".