Evidence Hub

Cell-Free DNA Fragmentation Patterns as Biomarkers for Human Papillomavirus-Related Cancers: A Systematic Review of Methodological Diversity and Diagnostic Performance

Santos F, Silva MS, Caramelo FA, Santana MM, Nobre RJ, Tomaz JMP, Almeida LP, Figueiredo-Dias M

International journal of molecular sciences, 2026

215 participants

Abstract

Novel blood biomarkers are crucial for HPV-related cancers to overcome the limitations of imaging and biopsies. This review evaluates the diagnostic performance of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) fragmentomic patterns, distinguishing host-genome integrity from specific viral signatures. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science up to February 2026. Methodological quality was assessed via QUADAS-2, and diagnostic performance was synthesized using a random-effects model. From 489 records, six studies (215 patients, 209 controls) met inclusion criteria. Lacking host-derived fragmentomics data, the analysis focused exclusively on the structural size profiles of circulating viral DNA (cfHPV-DNA). Meta-analysis of four cohorts specifically evaluating these viral fragmentation patterns yielded a pooled Diagnostic Odds Ratio (DOR) of 205.73 (95% CI: 44.72-946.38). Specificity was robust (~100%), with high sensitivity (>90%) for macroscopic disease. However, sensitivity decreased in low-tumor-burden cohorts. cfHPV-DNA fragmentation patterns shows promising diagnostic potential for macroscopic HPV-driven malignancies. However, further studies must determine whether fragment sizing truly outperforms binary viral detection and correlates with disease severity. Furthermore, while current assays exploit the analytical simplicity of viral targets, host-derived fragmentomics remains an overlooked compartment that warrants exploration to determine its true…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 215 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free