BRIEF RESEARCH REPORT article
Front. Oncol.
Sec. Molecular and Cellular Oncology
This article is part of the Research TopicSquamous Cell Carcinomas – HPV, or No HPV, That Is The QuestionView all 5 articles
Persistently high prevalence of HPV16 and Rising Prevalence of Non-16/18 HR-HPV Genotypes in Cervical Precancer and Cancer in Latvia in 2016-2024 Shape the Severity of Cervical Disease
Provisionally accepted- 1Riga Stradins Univeristy, Institute of Microbiology and Virology, Riga, Latvia
- 2Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Pathology Institute, Riga, Latvia
- 3Riga East Clinical University Hospital, Oncology Centre of Latvia, Riga, Latvia
- 4Riga East Clinical Univeristy Hospital, Pathology Centre, Riga, Latvia
- 5Riga East Clinical University Hosptial, Oncology Centre of Latvia, Riga, Latvia
- 6SIA E Gulbja Laboratorija, Riga, Latvia
- 7SIA Centrala Laboratorija, Riga, Latvia
- 8Latvijas Biomedicinas petijumu un studiju centrs, Riga, Latvia
- 9Riga East Clinical University, Pathology Centre, Riga, Latvia
- 10Riga Stradins University, Department of Pathology, Riga, Latvia
- 11Karolinska Institutet Institutionen for mikrobiologi tumor- och cellbiologi, Stockholm, Sweden
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Cervical cancer incidence and mortality in Latvia is one of the highest in Europe, but data on HR-HPV prevalence in cervical disease are lacking. We aimed to investigate HR-HPV prevalence in cervical squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) and cervical dysplasia (CD) , association with disease severity, and prevalence changes over time. Cervical tissue samples from 145 patients were retrieved and used for HR-HPV genotyping using two commercially available PCR kits. Only six CD samples were HR-HPV negative (6/66, 9.1%), while all CSCC were positive. Over 50% samples (75/139) harbored one, 33.8% two, 10.1% three, and 2.2% four HR-HPV genotypes. CSCC was more likely to harbor multiple HR-HPVs (p=0.0280). HPV16 remained most prevalent in CSCC and CD and was followed by HPV33 (32/139, 23.0%), HPV39 (13/139, 9.4%), and HPV18 (11/139, 7.9%). CSCC samples were more likely to have high HR-HPV loads (p=0.025). Disease severity expressed as CINI to CSCC grade 3, correlated with HR-HPVs detected (p=0.015, r=0.202) and HPV16 and HPV39 loads (p<0.001, r=0.354; p<0.001, r=0.307). prevalence decreased, insignificantly across the analyzed period, while HPV18 decreased significantly (2016-18: 17.4% vs. 2022-24: 2.2%; p=0.032). HPV66, 45, 39, 31, and 33 (2016-18: 13%; 2022-24:31.1%; p=0.045) increased. HPV16 remained the most prevalent HR-HPV, while HPV18 decreased. Other HR-HPV genotypes (HPV 66/45/39/31/33) demonstrated an increase in prevalence. Cervical disease severity was linked to specific HR-HPV loads and the number infecting HR-HPVs. These findings highlight the need for extended HR-HPV genotyping with determination of viral load, and request more epidemiological studies analyzing historical and current samples.
Keywords: cervical cancer, cervical dysplasia, HR-HPV, Infection, genotyping
Received: 30 Jul 2025; Accepted: 30 Oct 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Sokolovska, Biserova, Spridzane, Krisane, Dudorova, Gebrila, Krasovska, Perminov, Orlova, Petrovska, Jansons, Mitildzans, Nazarovs and Isaguliants. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: 
Liba  Sokolovska, liba.sokolovska@rsu.lv
Maria  Isaguliants, maria.issagouliantis@ki.se
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
