Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Health Science Reports logoLink to Health Science Reports
. 2024 Mar 18;7(3):e1976. doi: 10.1002/hsr2.1976

Investigating the relationship between Epstein‐Barr virus infection and gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Saman Dokanei 1, Dariush Minai‐Tehrani 1, Mohsen Moghoofei 2, Mosayeb Rostamian 3,4,✉
PMCID: PMC10948593  PMID: 38505684

Abstract

Background and Aims

Gastric cancer (GC) is a common cancer type worldwide, and various factors can be involved in its occurrence. One of these factors is Epstein‐Barr virus (EBV) infection. In this regard, a systematic review and meta‐analysis was conducted to achieve a better understanding of the EBV prevalence in GC samples.

Methods

English databases were searched and studies that reported the prevalence and etiological factors of EBV related to GC from July 2007 to November 2022 were retrieved. The reported data were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of EBV infection with 95% confidence intervals was calculated. Quality assessment, heterogeneity testing, and publication bias assessment were also performed. The literature search showed 953 studies, of which 87 studies met our inclusion criteria and were used for meta‐analysis.

Results

The pooled prevalence of EBV infection related to GC was estimated to be 9.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.2%−11%) in the general population. The prevalence of EBV infection related to GC by gender was 13.5% (95% CI: 11.1%−16.3%) in males and 7.6% (95% CI: 5.4%−10.6%) in females. No significant differences were observed in terms of geographical region. Out of the 87 studies included in the meta‐analysis, the most common diagnostic test was in situ hybridization (58 cases).

Conclusions

Altogether, the results indicated that EBV infection is one of the important factors in the development of GC. However, this does not necessarily mean that EBV infection directly causes GC since other factors may also be involved in the development of GC. Therefore, it is recommended to conduct extensive epidemiological studies on various aspects of the relationship between this virus and GC, which can provide valuable information for understanding the relationship between EBV and GC.

Keywords: Epstein‐Barr virus, gastric cancer, meta‐analysis, systematic review

1. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Gastric cancer (GC) poses a significant challenge to global health due to its prevalence as the fifth most frequently occurring cancer globally and its role as the third leading cause of cancer‐related deaths. GC is accountable for nearly 800,000 fatalities annually. 1 The prevalence of this ailment is significantly higher in males than in females, occurring almost twice as frequently in the former. Additionally, the majority of cases of this disease materialize after the age of 60. 1 , 2 The occurrence of GC exhibits significant variation across different geographic regions, with the highest prevalence observed in East Asia, certain regions of Eastern Europe, and South American nations. The lowest prevalence is noted in North America and Africa. Furthermore, developing countries bear the brunt of this disease, accounting for over 70% of its global burden. 3

Before the 1980s, GC held the position of the primary cause of cancer‐related deaths globally. 4 Over the last 50 years, a marked reduction in the prevalence of GC has been observed. This decline is primarily attributed to advancements in food storage and preservation, decreased consumption of salty and smoked foods, and possibly a reduction in the prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection. 5 , 6 Adenocarcinomas comprise more than 95% of all GC cases and are typically categorized based on their anatomical location (proximal/cardia or distal/noncardia) and histological type (intestinal or diffuse). 7 Apart from infections, certain dietary habits have been identified as risk factors for GC, including high consumption of red meat, smoked food, and salt, as well as low intake of fruits and vegetables. 8

Various types of gastric tumors can be identified based on their molecular characteristics, such as EBV‐positive tumors, tumors exhibiting microsatellite instability, chromosomally stable tumors, and tumors with chromosomal instability. 9

Epstein‐Barr virus (EBV), commonly referred to as the human herpesvirus 4, was discovered by Barr and Epstein in 1964 through electron microscopy of African Burkitt lymphoma cell suspensions. 10 This virus was the first human oncogenic virus to be discovered. 11 The initial documentation of EBV's involvement in GC occurred in 1990 when it was reported in gastric lymphoepithelial carcinoma. Since then, numerous investigations have been carried out on EBV and its correlation with various cancers, including GC. 12

Serological responses provide evidence of prior infection with EBV, which is present in over 90% of adults worldwide. Exposure to this virus typically occurs early in life, and most children in developing countries show positive serum presence of the virus by the age of five. While the onset of infection is delayed in areas with greater social and economic development, adults are almost equally positive for EBV. EBV is mainly transmitted through contact with respiratory secretions, which increases access and entry into the reticuloendothelial cells of the upper respiratory tree. EBV primarily targets B lymphocytes, however in immunocompromised hosts, it can infect other cell types, including epithelial cells. EBV is associated with several diseases, including T‐cell lymphoma, NK‐cell leukemia, and lymphoproliferative disorders. 13 , 14 , 15 While EBV has mechanisms to evade the immune system, a robust immune system can keep the virus in check through cellular immunity, including T cells, NK cells, and NKT cells. The precise molecular mechanisms behind how EBV induces latency rather than cell death are not entirely clear, but it is known that the virus employs latency mechanisms to evade the immune system. 16

There have been various investigations carried out on the correlation between GC and EBV, but more studies are needed to clarify this correlation. As a result, one of the most effective approaches to obtaining the most accurate results is to conduct meta‐analytic studies, which amalgamate the available evidence and offer a comprehensive estimation of reality from diverse angles. Several meta‐analytic studies have been undertaken to examine the association between EBV infection and GC. 17 , 18 , 19 However, it seems that there is a need for more comprehensive studies in this field that can offer a more accurate estimation of reality by combining the results of these studies. This would enable better decision‐making for therapeutic purposes and health policies in the domain of health care and treatment.

To fill this research gap, a systematic review was conducted to investigate published studies that explore the prevalence of EBV in samples of GC from different parts of the world. The main objective of this review was to carefully analyze the existing evidence systematically to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the association between EBV and GC. The ultimate aim of this endeavor is to equip health care professionals and policymakers with valuable insights that can inform clinical decision‐making and health policies regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of GC.

2. METHODS

2.1. Data sources

The study was conducted following the PRISMA* guidelines. 20 A systematic search strategy was applied to identify relevant texts on the prevalence of EBV associated with GC in electronic databases including PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, from July 2007 to November 2022 using appropriate keywords such as “Gastric cancer OR Epstein‐Barr virus” OR “Gastric cancer AND EBV” OR “Gastric cancer AND Epstein‐Barr virus” OR “stomach cancer AND EBV” OR “stomach neoplasms” OR “Neoplasm, Gastric” OR “Epstein‐Barr Virus” OR “Gastric.”

2.2. Study eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria were as follows: studies related to GC and EBV, original articles, published between 2007 and 2022, studies that mentioned the EBV diagnostic test, and articles published in English.

Exclusion criteria were as follows: reviewed studies, case reports, letters, studies that evaluated the presence of EBV in patients with underlying disorders, studies with insufficient data, studies in languages other than English, studies published before 2007, and studies that did not declare the EBV diagnostic test.

2.3. Data collection

After the initial screening based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two researchers independently extracted data from all eligible studies using a pre‐designed form in Microsoft Excel 2013. A list of abstracts was prepared by the researchers. Studies that were irrelevant to the research question were excluded, and relevant or potentially relevant studies were included in the initial list. Any discrepancies between the two researchers were resolved through consultation, and if necessary, a third researcher was consulted to make the final decision. By reviewing the full text of the remaining articles, studies that were completely relevant to the research objective were selected.

2.4. Quality assessment

The quality of studies was checked using the Appraisal Critical checklist from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), 21 which contains nine questions related to the quality assessment of cross‐sectional and prevalence studies. This checklist includes questions about the sample size, study groups, study setting, and statistical analysis. Each question is assigned a score, and studies that score 6 or higher are included in the analysis. Quality assessment was independently performed by two authors, and any discrepancies were resolved through consultation with a third author.

2.5. Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta‐analysis (CMA)† software. The standard error for the desired outcomes in the studies with a 95% confidence level for prevalence was calculated. The Cochrane Q test and the I‐squared index were used to assess heterogeneity among the studies. Heterogeneity less than 20% is considered low, between 20% and 60% is considered moderate, and greater than 60% is considered high. Depending on the heterogeneity of the studies and the significance of the heterogeneity index (I‐squared), a fixed or random‐effects model was used in the meta‐analysis. Subgroup analysis was used to compare the prevalence of EBV‐associated GC among different groups, such as gender, geographic regions, diagnostic methods, and sample types. A meta‐regression analysis was done to investigate the relationship between the prevalence of EBV and the sampling year. Publication bias was assessed using the Egger test (significance at p < 0.05).

3. RESULTS

3.1. Characteristics of the study

After a systematic search in electronic databases and using reference lists of articles, 87 human studies on the impact of EBV infection on GC were eligible (Figure 1). The characteristics of 87 studies involving 30,242 participants have been included (Table 1). The studies conducted in 22 countries from almost all continents. Diagnostic methods used were 58 cases of in situ hybridization, three cases of immunohistochemistry‐in situ hybridization, two cases of in situ fluorescent hybridization, seven cases of chromogenic in situ hybridization, eight cases of in situ polymerase chain reaction hybridization, and nine cases of various polymerase chain reaction methods.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flowchart of study selection.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of included studies for EBV‐associated gastric cancer.

Authors Country Year of publication Sampling year (median) Sample size Number of EBV Male+a Female+a Method
Abdirad et al. 22 Iran 2007 1986.5 273 9 8 1 ISH
Aslane et al. 23 Algeria 2016 2011.5 97 22 18 4 FISH
Akkus et al. 24 Turkey 2022 N/A 25 8 N/A N/A QPCR
Aversa et al. 25 China 2021 2001 1035 22 19 3 ISH
Baek et al. 26 South Korea 2018 2014 276 59 50 9 ISH
Birkman et al. 27 Finland 2018 2002.5 238 17 15 2 lHC‐lSH
Böger et al. 28 Germany 2017 N/A 484 22 20 2 ISH
Boysen et al. 29 Denmark 2011 1991 131 10 N/A N/A lHC‐lSH
Boysen et al. 30 Denmark 2009 1987.5 212 18 15 3 lHC‐lSH
Camargo et al. 31 Latvia 2018 2012.5 302 28 N/A N/A ISH
Camargo et al. 32 USA 2014 1997.5 2648 184 N/A N/A ISH
Castaneda et al. 33 Peru 2019 2016.5 375 72 N/A N/A QPCR
Chen et al. 34 China 2010 2003 676 45 37 8 ISH
Cheng et al. −1 35 China 2015 2003 53 8 7 1 ISH
Cheng et al. −2 36 China 2021 2007 846 42 38 4 ISH
Choi et al. 37 South Korea 2020 2008.5 514 32 24 8 ISH
Ciarpaglini et al. 38 Spain 2019 2010 209 13 10 3 ISH
Dai et al. 39 China 2016 N/A 398 10 N/A N/A ISH
de Lima et al. 40 Brazil 2012 N/A 160 11 9 1 PCR‐ISH
de Rosa et al. 41 ltaly 2018 1996 169 33 24 9 ISH
de Souza et al. 42 Brazil 2018 2010 302 62 43 19 ISH
Faghihloo et al. 43 lran 2014 2009 90 6 4 2 qRT‐PCR
Fang et al. 44 Taiwan 2020 2008.5 460 43 35 8 ISH
Ferrasi et al. 45 Brazil 2010 N/A 54 5 N/A N/A ISH
Gasenko et al. 46 Latvia 2019 2012.5 302 26 22 4 ISH
Guerfali et al. 47 Tunisia 2011 2004 81 12 6 6 ISH
Gullo et al. 48 Portugal 2019 N/A 78 19 N/A N/A CISH
Guo et al. 49 China 2020 N/A 270 18 14 4 PCR‐ISH
Huang et al. 50 Taiwan 2019 2003 1248 65 54 11 ISH
Irkkan et al. 51 Turkey 2017 2009.5 105 8 8 N/A ISH
Jung et al. 52 South Korea 2007 1992 111 7 6 1 ISH
Kang et al. 53 South Korea 2016 N/A 1318 120 96 24 ISH
Kawazoe et al. −1 54 Japan 2017 2006 487 25 N/A N/A ISH
Kawazoe et al. −2 55 Japan 2019 2016 225 14 11 N/A CISH
Kim et al.−1 56 South Korea 2010 2004 247 18 17 1 ISH
Kim et al.−2 57 South Korea 2017 N/A 207 13 N/A N/A ISH
Kim et al.−3 58 South Korea 2019 2005.5 273 25 N/A N/A ISH
Kim et al.−4 59 USA 2019 2011 43 6 5 1 ISH
Kim et al.−5 60 South Korea 2019 2012.5 297 22 N/A N/A CISH
Kim et al.−6 61 South Korea 2020 2011 286 17 N/A N/A ISH
Kim et al.−7 62 USA 2021 2007.5 88 5 N/A N/A lHC‐lSH
Koriyama et al. −2 63 Japan 2010 1992.5 156 21 N/A N/A ISH
Koriyama et al. −1 64 Japan 2007 1984 179 59 N/A N/A ISH
Ksiaa et al. 65 Tunisia 2014 N/A 43 4 4 N/A PCR‐ISH
Leila et al. 66 lran 2016 2011.5 90 10 9 1 RT‐PCR
Lima et al. 67 Brazil 2008 N/A 71 6 6 N/A ISH
Liu et al. 68 China 2016 2011 206 15 10 5 ISH
Ma et al.−1 7 USA 2016 N/A 44 7 6 1 ISH
Ma et al.−2 69 China 2017 2008.5 571 31 26 5 ISH
Martinson et al. 70 USA 2020 2010 85 19 13 6 CISH
Moore et al. 71 Germany 2020 2006.5 74 17 N/A N/A PCR
Na et al. 72 South Korea 2017 2015 205 15 13 2 ISH
Nogueira et al. 73 Portugal 2017 N/A 82 9 8 1 PCR‐ISH
Noh et al. 74 South Korea 2018 2005.5 479 36 N/A N/A ISH
Nshizirungu et al. 75 Morocco 2021 2016 97 6 6 0 ISH
Nunes et al. 76 Brazil 2021 2010 1000 190 127 63 ISH
Osumi et al. 77 Japan 2019 2009.5 898 71 58 13 ISH
Pereira et al. 78 Brazil 2018 2012.5 286 30 23 7 ISH
Pinto et al. 79 ltaly 2020 2015.5 70 2 1 1 CISH
Ribeiro et al. 80 Portugal 2019 2009 199 5 3 2 ISH
Ribeiro et al. 81 Portugal 2017 2011 179 15 12 3 ISH
Roh et al. 82 South Korea 2019 N/A 582 41 38 3 ISH
Rihane et al. 83 Morocco 2021 N/A 100 40 22 18 nested PCR
Ryan et al. 84 USA 2009 N/A 113 11 N/A N/A QPCR‐lSH
Saito et al. 85 Japan 2017 2001.5 232 96 76 20 ISH
Setia et al. 86 USA/South Korea 2019 1998 486 33 N/A N/A ISH
Shen et al. 87 China 2017 2009 202 42 29 13 PCR
Siciliano et al. 88 ltaly 2022 2010 40 7 5 2 ISH
Song et al. 89 South Korea 2010 2001 1080 123 91 32 ISH
Sun et al. 90 China 2019 2013 165 2 1 1 ISH
Sundar et al. 91 South Korea 2018 2006 220 71 62 9 ISH
Trimeche et al. 92 Tunisia 2009 2001.5 96 4 4 N/A PCR‐ISH
Truong et al. 93 USA 2009 1996.5 235 12 11 1 ISH
Tsai et al. 94 Taiwan 2017 2003 1039 52 42 10 ISH
Ushiku et al. −1 95 Japan 2007 1997 51 13 N/A N/A ISH
Ushiku et al. −2 96 Japan 2015 N/A 54 10 9 1 ISH
Valentini et al. 97 ltaly 2019 2015.5 70 2 N/A N/A CISH
Wanvimonsuk et al. 98 Thailand 2019 N/A 33 4 N/A N/A PCR‐ISH
Yanagi et al. 99 Japan 2019 2012 1067 69 61 8 ISH
Yang et al. 100 China 2021 2013.5 226 13 N/A N/A ISH
Yoon et al. 101 Canada 2019 2006 107 3 2 1 ISH
Zhang et al.−1 102 China 2016 2010 600 30 25 5 ISH
Zhang et al.−2 103 China 2019 2004 1013 58 N/A N/A FISH
Zhao et al. 104 Hong kong 2012 2002.5 555 68 60 8 PCR‐ISH
Zhou et al. 105 China 2019 2016 300 28 N/A N/A ISH
Zhu et al. 106 China 2013 2008.5 58 13 N/A N/A RT‐PCR
Zebardast et al. 107 lran 2022 2015 81 13 8 5 qRT‐PCR
Open in a new tab
a

Gastric cancer patients positive for EBV.

Abbreviations: CISH, Chromogenic in situ hybridization; FISH, Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization; IHC, immunohistochemistry; ISH, In Situ Hybridization; N/A, not available; PCR, Polymerase Chain Reaction; median, Based on the beginning and end of the year the sampling of the studies is set.

3.2. Prevalence of EBV associated with GC

The prevalence of EBV in patients with GC in each study as well as the pooled prevalence of all studies are shown in the general population (A), female (B), and male subjects (C).

Using the number of EBV in GC samples, the prevalence of EBV was calculated for each study as well as the total studies in the general population. The overall pooled prevalence of EBV in GC samples in the general population was 9.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.2%−11.0%: I 2 = 92.9%) (p = 0.000), (Table 2).

Table 2.

Prevalence of EBV in gastric cancer samples.

Study name Prevalence in the general population Prevalence in female Prevalence in male
Event rate Lower limit Upper limit p Value Event rate Lower limit Upper limit p Value Event rate Lower limit Upper limit p Value
Abdirad et al. 0.033 0.017 0.062 0.000 0.013 0.002 0.088 0.000 0.043 0.021 0.083 0.000
Aslane et al. 0.227 0.154 0.321 0.079 0.133 0.051 0.306 0.000 0.269 0.176 0.387 0.000
Akkus S 0.320 0.169 0.522 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Aversa JG 0.021 0.014 0.032 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.023 0.015 0.037 0.000
Baek et al. 0.214 0.169 0.266 0.000 0.120 0.064 0.215 0.000 0.249 0.194 0.313 0.000
Birkman et al. 0.071 0.045 0.112 0.000 0.014 0.004 0.054 0.000 0.149 0.092 0.232 0.000
Boger et al. 0.045 0.030 0.068 0.000 0.011 0.003 0.043 0.000 0.066 0.043 0.100 0.000
Boysen et al. 0.076 0.042 0.136 0.000 0.039 0.013 0.114 0.000 0.111 0.068 0.176 0.000
Boysen T 0.085 0.054 0.131 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Camargo MC 0.093 0.065 0.131 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Camargo et al. 0.069 0.060 0.080 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Castaneda et al. 0.192 0.155 0.235 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Chen et al. 0.067 0.050 0.088 0.000 0.033 0.017 0.065 0.000 0.085 0.062 0.115 0.000
Cheng et al. −1 0.151 0.077 0.274 0.000 0.125 0.017 0.537 0.000 0.156 0.076 0.292 0.000
Cheng et al. −2 0.050 0.037 0.067 0.000 0.015 0.006 0.040 0.000 0.065 0.048 0.088 0.000
Choi et al. 0.062 0.044 0.087 0.000 0.048 0.024 0.093 0.000 0.069 0.047 0.101 0.000
Ciarpaglini et al. 0.062 0.036 0.104 0.000 0.053 0.017 0.151 0.000 0.069 0.038 0.124 0.000
Dai et al. 0.025 0.014 0.046 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
de Lima et al. 0.069 0.038 0.120 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.950 0.525 0.997 0.042
de Rosa et al. 0.195 0.142 0.262 0.000 0.143 0.076 0.252 0.000 0.233 0.161 0.324 0.000
de Souza et al. 0.205 0.163 0.255 0.000 0.178 0.116 0.262 0.000 0.221 0.168 0.284 0.000
Faghihloo E, 0.067 0.030 0.141 0.000 0.077 0.019 0.261 0.001 0.063 0.024 0.155 0.000
Fang et al. 0.093 0.070 0.124 0.000 0.061 0.031 0.117 0.000 0.106 0.077 0.145 0.000
Ferrasi et al. 0.093 0.039 0.204 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Gasenko et al. 0.086 0.059 0.123 0.000 0.022 0.008 0.057 0.000 0.185 0.125 0.265 0.000
Guerfali et al. 0.148 0.086 0.243 0.000 0.182 0.084 0.350 0.000 0.125 0.057 0.252 0.000
Gullo et al. 0.244 0.161 0.351 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Guo et al. 0.067 0.042 0.103 0.000 0.077 0.029 0.188 0.000 0.064 0.038 0.000 0.000
Huang et al. 0.052 0.041 0.066 0.000 0.023 0.013 0.042 0.000 0.069 0.054 0.090 0.000
Irkkan et al. 0.076 0.039 0.145 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.104 0.053 0.194 0.000
Jung et al. 0.063 0.030 0.126 0.000 0.029 0.004 0.177 0.000 0.079 0.036 0.165 0.000
Kang et al. 0.091 0.077 0.108 0.000 0.980 0.749 0.999 0.000 0.995 0.923 1.000 0.000
Kawazoe et al. −1 0.051 0.035 0.075 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Kawazoe et al. −2 0.062 0.037 0.102 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.081 0.045 0.140 0.000
Kim et al.−1 0.073 0.046 0.113 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.972 0.678 0.998 0.013
Kim et al.−2 0.063 0.037 0.105 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Kim et al.−3 0.092 0.063 0.132 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Kim et al.−4 0.140 0.064 0.278 0.000 0.053 0.007 0.294 0.005 0.208 0.089 0.413 0.008
Kim et al.−5 0.074 0.049 0.110 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Kim et al.−6 0.059 0.037 0.094 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Kim et al.−7 0.057 0.024 0.129 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Koriyama et al. −2 0.135 0.089 0.198 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Koriyama et al. −1 0.330 0.265 0.402 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ksiaa et al. 0.093 0.035 0.223 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.148 0.057 0.335 0.001
Leila Z 0.111 0.061 0.194 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.105 0.048 0.215 0.000
Lima et al. 0.085 0.038 0.176 0.000 0.059 0.008 0.320 0.001 0.123 0.065 0.220 0.000
Liu et al. 0.073 0.044 0.117 0.000 0.094 0.040 0.207 0.000 0.065 0.036 0.117 0.000
Ma et al.−1 0.159 0.078 0.298 0.000 0.053 0.007 0.294 0.005 0.240 0.112 0.442 0.014
Ma et al.−2 0.054 0.038 0.076 0.000 0.030 0.013 0.071 0.000 0.064 0.044 0.092 0.000
Martinson et al. 0.224 0.147 0.324 0.000 0.182 0.084 0.350 0.001 0.250 0.151 0.384 0.001
Moore et al. 0.230 0.148 0.339 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Na et al. 0.073 0.045 0.118 0.000 0.034 0.008 0.126 0.000 0.089 0.052 0.147 0.000
Nogueira et al. 0.110 0.058 0.198 0.000 0.027 0.004 0.168 0.000 0.178 0.091 0.317 0.000
Noh et al. 0.075 0.055 0.102 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Nshizirungu et al. 0.062 0.028 0.131 0.000 0.013 0.001 0.175 0.002 0.102 0.046 0.208 0.000
Nunes et al. 0.190 0.167 0.216 0.000 0.184 0.147 0.229 0.000 0.193 0.165 0.225 0.000
Osumi et al. 0.079 0.063 0.099 0.000 0.043 0.025 0.073 0.000 0.097 0.076 0.123 0.000
Pereira et al. 0.105 0.074 0.146 0.000 0.059 0.028 0.118 0.000 0.138 0.093 0.199 0.000
Pinto et al. 0.029 0.007 0.107 0.000 0.042 0.001 0.244 0.002 0.022 0.003 0.139 0.000
Ribeiro et al.−1 0.025 0.010 0.059 0.000 0.024 0.006 0.089 0.000 0.026 0.009 0.078 0.000
Ribeiro et al. 0.084 0.051 0.134 0.000 0.042 0.014 0.123 0.000 0.111 0.064 0.186 0.000
Roh et al. 0.070 0.052 0.094 0.000 0.409 0.275 0.558 0.230 0.393 0.275 0.525 0.112
Rihane FE, 0.400 0.309 0.499 0.047 0.017 0.006 0.051 0.000 0.093 0.068 0.125 0.000
Ryan et al. 0.097 0.055 0.167 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Saito et al. 0.414 0.352 0.478 0.009 0.976 0.713 0.999 0.009 0.994 0.905 1.000 0.000
Setia et al. 0.068 0.049 0.094 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Shen et al. 0.208 0.157 0.269 0.000 0.206 0.124 0.324 0.000 0.209 0.149 0.284 0.000
Siciliano et al. 0.175 0.086 0.324 0.000 0.143 0.036 0.427 0.019 0.192 0.082 0.387 0.004
Song et al. 0.114 0.096 0.134 0.000 0.985 0.799 0.999 0.003 0.995 0.919 1.000 0.000
Sun et al. 0.012 0.003 0.047 0.000 0.021 0.003 0.134 0.000 0.009 0.001 0.058 0.000
Sundar et al. 0.323 0.264 0.387 0.000 0.950 0.525 0.997 0.042 0.992 0.885 1.000 0.001
Trimeche et al. 0.042 0.016 0.106 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.066 0.025 0.162 0.000
Truong et al. 0.051 0.029 0.088 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.958 0.575 0.997 0.030
Tsai et al. 0.050 0.038 0.065 0.000 0.024 0.013 0.044 0.000 0.068 0.051 0.091 0.000
Ushiku et al. −1 0.255 0.154 0.391 0.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ushiku et al. −2 0.185 0.103 0.311 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.950 0.525 0.997 0.042
Valentini et al. 0.029 0.007 0.107 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wanvimonsuk et al. 0.121 0.046 0.282 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Yanagi et al. 0.065 0.051 0.081 0.000 0.024 0.012 0.047 0.000 0.083 0.065 0.105 0.000
Yang et al. 0.058 0.034 0.097 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Yoon et al. 0.028 0.009 0.083 0.000 0.024 0.003 0.154 0.000 0.030 0.008 0.113 0.000
Zhang et al.−1 0.050 0.035 0.071 0.000 0.023 0.010 0.054 0.000 0.065 0.044 0.095 0.000
Zhang et al.−2 0.057 0.045 0.073 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Zhao et al. 0.123 0.098 0.153 0.000 0.944 0.495 0.997 0.052 0.992 0.882 0.999 0.001
Zhou et al. 0.093 0.065 0.132 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Zhu et al. 0.224 0.135 0.349 0.000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Zebardast et al. 0.160 0.096 0.257 0.000 0.208 0.089 0.413 0.000 0.140 0.072 0.256 0.000
Overall 0.095 0.082 0.110 0.000 0.076 0.054 0.106 0.000 0.135 0.111 0.163 0.000
Open in a new tab

Subgroup analysis of EBV infection associated with GC based on gender showed that the prevalence of EBV associated with GC in females was 7.6% (95% CI: 5.4%−10.6%, I 2 = 86.4%) (Table 2) while in males it was 13.5% (95% CI: 11.1%−16.3%, I 2 = 89.5%) (Table 2).

3.3. Prevalence of EBV associated with GC based on country, sample type, and methods

The subgroup analyses of EBV in the GC samples based on the country (A), sample type (B), and methods of detection (C) were illustrated.

Subgroup analysis of EBV infection associated with GC based on geographical location (country), showed different prevalence ranges from 2.8% in Canada to 22.7% in Algeria (Figure 2A). It should be mentioned that the low prevalence in Canada entirely based on a single small study and has yet to be confirmed.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Charts of subgroup analyses on EBV in the gastric cancer samples. The subgroup analyses of EBV in the gastric cancer samples based on the country (A), sample type (B), and methods of detection (C) are illustrated. The numbers show the EBV prevalence (event rate) percentages. N/A means not available.

Subgroup analysis of EBV infection associated with GC based on the sample type showed a higher reported prevalence in biopsy (13.2%) than in formalin‐fixed and paraffin‐embedded (FFPE) (0.9%) (Figure 2B). Subgroup analysis based on diagnostic method, showed that in situ hybridization has been used the most. Meanwhile, the highest rate of prevalence is estimated by the PCR method (Figure 2C).

3.4. Prevalence of EBV associated with GC during years

A meta‐regression was conducted to assay the trend of EBV prevalence in GC samples during sampling years. Although we included studies from 2007 to 2022, the samplings have been performed since 1984 afterward. The results of meta‐regression showed no obvious increase or decrease in EBV prevalence in GC samples during the years (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Meta‐regression plot of EBV in the gastric cancer samples during sampling years. As the plot shows there is no significant difference in overall EBV prevalence in GC samples over years of sampling. EBV, Epstein‐Barr virus; GC, gastric cancer.

3.5. Publication bias

The publication bias was assessed using the data of EBV prevalence in GC samples by performing Egger's test. The results showed the absence of publication bias in studies (Egger's test = 0.09942, p > 0.05).

4. DISCUSSION

Several meta‐analytic studies have investigated the connection between GC and EBV across the globe. However, there is a pressing need to update the information on the prevalence of EBV associated with GC and obtain an up‐to‐date estimate of how this virus behaves at a global level. To address this, the present study was conducted that aimed to provide a current estimate of the global prevalence of EBV linked to GC. The study found that the prevalence of EBV associated with GC is approximately 9.5%, indicating that a significant number of GC cases may be linked to EBV infection. In a study done by Hirabayashi et al. in 2023, the prevalence was estimated to be 7.5% in 68,000 patients. 108 Tavakoli et al. reported a prevalence of 8.77% in 20,361 GC patients in 2020. 19 Lee et al. reported a prevalence of 8.8% in 9,738 individuals in their meta‐analysis in 2009. 109 Murphy et al. estimated a prevalence of 8.7% in 15,952 patients in 2009. 18 Our study's findings are in agreement with these previous reports regarding the connection between EBV and GC. The prevalence rate of EBV associated with GC that we have estimated is significant and implies that EBV is a crucial risk factor for the development of a subset of GC.

However, it is important to note that while there is a strong correlation between EBV infection and GC, this does not necessarily imply that EBV directly causes GC. Other factors that can contribute to the development of this cancer and create conditions for the virus to impact its development should also be investigated and analyzed. Given the relatively high prevalence of EBV‐associated GC, it is crucial to conduct more extensive epidemiological studies. This would enable us to better understand the dynamics of this virus and the factors that influence its effects. By doing so, more comprehensive measures can be taken in terms of early warning, prevention, and control of this virus for communities. Therefore, it is important to develop effective strategies to mitigate the impact of EBV‐associated GC, improve public health outcomes, and prevent the spread of this disease.

According to our analyses, male patients diagnosed with GC have a higher likelihood, approximately 1.8 times, of being carriers of EBV compared to female patients diagnosed with GC. Li et al. estimated that EBV‐related cases of GC in males are 3.7 times more than in females. 110 Qiao et al. reported that the prevalence of males with the disease is 4.2 times higher than that of females. 111 Tavakoli et al. also reported that the prevalence of males with the disease is 1.9 times higher than that of females. 19 The greater occurrence of EBV in male GC patients can be explained by various factors, including genetic, lifestyle, and occupational factors, as well as gender‐related factors such as sex hormones. However, it is challenging to ascertain whether the observed disparity in the prevalence of EBV in male GC patients compared to female GC patients is solely due to gender‐related factors or not.

The analysis of sample types revealed a higher frequency of EBV detection in biopsy samples compared to FFPE samples from GC patients, despite the larger number of FFPE samples available. The reason why most studies have relied on FFPE samples for diagnosis is likely due to the widespread use of FFPE tissues for clinical diagnosis, as well as the value of FFPE archives for biomedical research. Proteins present in FFPE samples remain stable for long periods, making them particularly useful for retrospective analysis. 112 Despite the advantages of FFPE samples, there are limitations associated with their use. One such limitation is the potential for mutual crosslinking of nucleic acids and formaldehyde. Formaldehyde can covalently crosslink nucleic acids and proteins, causing fragmentation of nucleic acids and making the extraction of high‐quality RNA and DNA challenging. In contrast, biopsies are typically taken directly from the tumor site, providing a more precise representation of the virus's presence in the tissue. Therefore, biopsies may be a more reliable sample type for detecting the virus.

This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of EBV associated with GC from 1980 to 2022, employing meta‐regression analysis. The rationale for conducting this analysis was due to the prevalence of global viral pandemics during this time, which may have had an adverse effect on the virus's behavior. The results of the analysis indicated that the prevalence of EBV associated with GC remained relatively constant over the four decades, suggesting that viral pandemics or other time‐related factors are not significant influencers of the virus's behavior.

The findings of this study suggest that there is no meaningful correlation between the development criteria of various countries and the prevalence of EBV associated with GC. However, further in‐depth investigations need to be conducted among countries with differing development indicators to validate the results of this study. Several studies 19 , 22 , 96 The results indicate that ISH‐EBER is considered the most reliable method for detecting EBV due to its ability to identify EBER1 signals in the nucleus of nearly all cancer cells in EBV‐associated gastric carcinoma. Therefore, ISH‐EBER can be considered the gold standard method for detecting EBV. 113 Certain researchers have solely relied on studies that have diagnosed the presence of EBV through the in situ hybridization technique to evaluate the overall prevalence of EBV associated with GC. They argue that the sensitivity and specificity of each diagnostic method vary, and the outcomes derived from combined data are not reliable. On the other hand, Zheng et al. believe this, stating that EBV testing using ISH is both time‐consuming and expensive, and there are no cost or time savings associated with it. 114 After analyzing the time‐consuming and expensive nature of ISH‐EBER‐1, as reported by Zheng et al. we have chosen to analyze all studies that have employed various EBV detection methods, including PCR, immunohistochemistry, and different in situ hybridization techniques, even those that do not utilize in situ hybridization for coding RNAs of EBV in tissues. It is important to note that while PCR is a cost‐effective and straightforward method for detecting EBV infection, its low sensitivity makes it vulnerable to false‐positive results. Deyhimi et al. 115 and Chen et al. 116 reported that one explanation for the low sensitivity of PCR is that it can detect the presence of the EBV genome not only in tumor cells but also in nontumor cells like memory cells and lymphocytes. However, Chen et al. have argued that because more than 90% of people carry the virus, their lymphocytes may also contain the EBV genome, making it difficult for PCR to distinguish between cancer cells and infiltrating lymphocytes in the tumor stroma. Consequently, it is not possible to determine the origin of the amplified EBV genome. While PCR‐based methods are more sensitive than the gold standard ISH for detecting EBV, they are less specific. 115 , 116 It is important to acknowledge that certain methods may have limited research studies conducted on them. As a result, it is necessary to conduct further extensive research studies to obtain conclusive results regarding these methods.

The current study has several limitations that should be considered. Firstly, some important risk factors, such as the socioeconomic status and age of the patients, were not examined due to the unavailability of relevant information. Secondly, different diagnostic tests were used to diagnose EBV‐associated GC, which varied in sensitivity and specificity values. Thirdly, the study only included English‐language studies and a limited number of databases, which may have restricted access to articles and studies published in other languages or databases. Fourthly, we did not consider gray literature, potentially resulting in some missing data. Finally, the subjective nature of quality assessment, with a set inclusion threshold, introduces potential bias as different reviewers may evaluate the same study differently. Therefore, the researchers recommend that these limitations be taken into account, and further research should be conducted to investigate the relationship of EBV with other microorganisms like Helicobacter pylori, the association of EBV with cancer stages, potential risk factors, age, genetic and epigenetic factors. Despite numerous studies conducted worldwide to investigate the prevalence of EBV‐associated GC, there are still research gaps, and many regions of the world have not been evaluated, which may affect the estimated prevalence. Therefore, the study's results should be interpreted with caution.

5. CONCLUSION

The present study estimated an overall prevalence of 9.5% of EBV in GC samples, indicating that EBV infection is a significant factor in GC development. However, it is important to note that this does not necessarily imply that EBV infection directly causes GC. To obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the association between the virus and GC, it is advisable to conduct extensive epidemiological studies that explore various aspects of their relationship. The findings of our study hold the potential to facilitate the development of systematic screening programs aimed at controlling and ultimately preventing the impact of this parameter on GC occurrence. Given that males have twice the prevalence of EBV‐associated GC compared to females, it is recommended that other researchers investigate with more sensitivity the genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors that may be involved in this process to provide a clearer perspective on this area. Given the time‐consuming and costly nature of the ISH test and the absence of a generic alternative test that confirms EBV with the same accuracy as ISH, the development of a more cost‐effective and accessible tool for confirming EBV can be a crucial and effective step in reducing unnecessary costs and saving patients' time. Consequently, we suggest that researchers in the biomedical sciences devote more attention to this area.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Saman Dokanei: Data curation. Dariush Minai‐Tehrani: Resources. Mohsen Moghoofei: Data curation. Mosayeb Rostamian: Formal analysis.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

TRANSPARENCY STATEMENT

The lead author Mosayeb Rostamian affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to the Department of Microbiology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. This work was supported by Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. The supporting source/financial relationships had no involvement in the study design, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the report for publication.

Dokanei S, Minai‐Tehrani D, Moghoofei M, Rostamian M. Investigating the relationship between Epstein‐Barr virus infection and gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Health Sci Rep. 2024;7:e1976. 10.1002/hsr2.1976

ENDNOTES

*

PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis.

†

CMA: Comprehensive Meta‐analysis.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article [and/or] its supplementary materials.

REFERENCES

  • 1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394‐424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Marqués‐Lespier JM, González‐Pons M, Cruz‐Correa M. Current perspectives on gastric cancer. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2016;45(3):413‐428. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(2):69‐90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Parkin DM. Epidemiology of cancer: global patterns and trends. Toxicol Lett. 1998;102–103:227‐234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Coggon D, Barker DJP, Cole RB, Nelson M. Stomach cancer and food storage. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81(15):1178‐1182. https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jnci/81.15.1178 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Howson CP, Hiyama T, Wynder EL. The decline in gastric cancer: epidemiology of an unplanned triumph. Epidemiol Rev. 1986;8(1):1‐27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Ma C, Patel K, Singhi AD, et al. Programmed Death‐Ligand 1 expression is common in gastric cancer associated with Epstein‐Barr virus or microsatellite instability. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(11):1496‐1506. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Venneman K, Huybrechts I, Gunter MJ, Vandendaele L, Herrero R, Van Herck K. The epidemiology of helicobacter pylori infection in Europe and the impact of lifestyle on its natural evolution toward stomach cancer after infection: a systematic review. Helicobacter. 2018;23(3):e12483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network . Comprehensive molecular characterization of gastric adenocarcinoma. Nature. 2014;513(7517):202‐209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Epstein MA, Achong BG, Barr YM. Virus particles in cultured lymphoblasts from burkitt's lymphoma. Lancet. 1964;283(7335):702‐703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Pattengale P, Smith R, Gerber P. Selective transformation of b lymphocytes by E.B. virus. Lancet. 1973;302(7820):93‐94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Burke AP, Yen TS, Shekitka KM, Sobin LH. Lymphoepithelial carcinoma of the stomach with Epstein‐Barr virus demonstrated by polymerase chain reaction. Modern Pathology. 1990;3(3):377‐380. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Hue SS‐S, Oon ML, Wang S, Tan S‐Y, Ng S‐B. Epstein–Barr virus‐associated T‐ and NK‐cell lymphoproliferative diseases: an update and diagnostic approach. Pathology. 2020; 52(1):111‐127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Iwatsuki K, Miyake T, Hirai Y, Yamamoto T. Hydroa vacciniforme: a distinctive form of Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated T‐cell lymphoproliferative disorders. Eur J Dermatol. 2019;29(1):21‐28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Jha HC, Pei Y, Robertson ES. Epstein–Barr virus: diseases linked to infection and transformation. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1602. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Houen G, Trier NH. Epstein‐Barr virus and systemic autoimmune diseases. Front Immunol. 2021;11:587380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Bae J‐M, Kim EH. Epstein‐Barr virus and gastric cancer risk: A meta‐analysis with meta‐regression of case‐control studies. J Prev Med Public Health. 2016;49(2):97‐107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Murphy G, Pfeiffer R, Camargo MC, Rabkin CS. Meta‐analysis shows that prevalence of Epstein–Barr Virus‐Positive gastric cancer differs based on sex and anatomic location. Gastroenterology. 2009;137(3):824‐833. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Tavakoli A, Monavari SH, Solaymani Mohammadi F, Kiani SJ, Armat S, Farahmand M. Association between Epstein‐Barr virus infection and gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. BMC Cancer. 2020;20(1):493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://www.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmj.n71 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D, Tufanaru C. Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data. Int J Evi Based Health. 2015;13(3):147‐153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Abdirad A, Ghaderi‐Sohi S, Shuyama K, et al. Epstein‐Barr virus associated gastric carcinoma: a report from Iran in the last four decades. Diagn Pathol. 2007;2(1):25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Aslane M, Haj AAl, Henneb A, Khenchouche A, Houali K. No TitleCharacteristics of gastric carcinoma associated with Epstein Barr virus in Algeria. Sch Res Libr. 2016;8(17):169‐178. [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Akkus S, Gareayaghi N, Saribas S, et al. Co‐infection relationship with Epstein‐Barr virus in gastroduodenal diseases with Helicobacter Pylori. Quantitative PCR and EBNA‐1 gene‐based approach. Acta Gastro Enterologica Belgica. 2022;85(2):301‐308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Aversa JG, Song M, Hu N, et al. Low Epstein–Barr virus prevalence in cardia gastric cancer among a High‐Incidence Chinese population. Dig Dis Sci. 2021;66(4):1220‐1226. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Baek DW, Kang BW, Kim JG. The predictive value of Epstein‐Barr Virus‐Positivity in patients undergoing gastrectomy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Chonnam Med J. 2018;54(3):173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Birkman E‐M, Mansuri N, Kurki S, et al. Gastric cancer: immunohistochemical classification of molecular subtypes and their association with clinicopathological characteristics. Virchows Arch. 2018;472(3):369‐382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Böger C, Krüger S, Behrens HM, et al. Epstein–Barr virus‐associated gastric cancer reveals intratumoral heterogeneity of PIK3CA mutations. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(5):1005‐1014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Boysen T, Friborg J, Stribolt K, et al. Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated gastric carcinoma among patients with pernicious anemia. Int J Cancer. 2011;129(11):2756‐2760. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Boysen T, Mohammadi M, Melbye M, et al. EBV‐associated gastric carcinoma in high‐ and low‐incidence areas for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 2009;101(3):530‐533. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Camargo M, Sivins A, Isajevs S, et al. Associations of Epstein‐Barr Virus‐Positive gastric adenocarcinoma with circulating mediators of inflammation and immune response. Cancers. 2018;10(9):284. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Camargo MC, Koriyama C, Matsuo K, et al. Case‐case comparison of smoking and alcohol risk associations with Epstein‐Barr virus‐positive gastric cancer. Int J Cancer. 2014;134(4):948‐953. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Castaneda CA, Castillo M, Chavez I, et al. Prevalence of helicobacter pylori infection, its virulent genotypes, and Epstein‐Barr virus in Peruvian patients with chronic gastritis and gastric cancer. J Glob Oncol. 2019;5(5):1‐9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Chen J‐N, Ding Y‐G, Feng Z‐Y, et al. Association of distinctive Epstein‐Barr virus variants with gastric carcinoma in guangzhou, Southern China. J Med Virol. 2010;82(4):658‐667. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Cheng N, Hui D, Liu Y, et al. Is gastric lymphoepithelioma‐like carcinoma a special subtype of EBV‐associated gastric carcinoma? New insight based on clinicopathological features and EBV genome polymorphisms. Gastric Cancer. 2015;18(2):246‐255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Cheng N, Li P, Cheng H, et al. Prognostic value of Tumor‐Infiltrating lymphocytes and tertiary lymphoid structures in Epstein‐Barr Virus‐Associated and ‐negative gastric carcinoma. Front Immunol. 2021;12:692859. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Choi E, Chang MS, Byeon S, et al. Prognostic perspectives of PD‐L1 combined with tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes, Epstein‐Barr virus, and microsatellite instability in gastric carcinomas. Diagn Pathol. 2020;15(1):69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Martinez‐Ciarpaglini C, Fleitas‐Kanonnikoff T, Gambardella V, et al. Assessing molecular subtypes of gastric cancer: microsatellite unstable and Epstein‐Barr virus subtypes. Methods for detection and clinical and pathological implications. ESMO Open. 2019;4(3):e000470. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Dai C, Geng R, Wang C, et al. Concordance of immune checkpoints within tumor immune contexture and their prognostic significance in gastric cancer. Mol Oncol. 2016;10(10):1551‐1558. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Lima MAP, Ferreira MVP, Barros MAP, Pardini MIMC, Ferrasi AC, Rabenhorst SHB. Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated gastric carcinoma in Brazil: comparison between in situ hybridization and polymerase chain reaction detection. Braz J Microbiol. 2012;43(1):393‐404. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. De Rosa S, Sahnane N, Tibiletti M, et al. EBV+ and MSI gastric cancers harbor high PD‐L1/PD‐1 expression and high CD8+ intratumoral lymphocytes. Cancers. 2018;10(4):102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Souza CRT, Almeida MCA, Khayat AS, et al. Association between helicobacter pylori, Epstein‐Barr virus, human papillomavirus and gastric adenocarcinomas. World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24(43):4928‐4938. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Faghihloo E, Saremi MR, Mahabadi M, Akbari H, Saberfar E. Prevalence and characteristics of Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated gastric cancer in Iran. Arch Iran Med. 2014;17(11):767‐770. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Fang W‐L, Chen M‐H, Huang K‐H, et al. The clinicopathological features and genetic alterations in Epstein–Barr Virus‐Associated gastric cancer patients after curative surgery. Cancers. 2020;12(6):1517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Ferrasi AC. Helicobacter pylori and EBV in gastric carcinomas: methylation status and microsatellite instability. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16(3):312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Gasenko E, Isajevs S, Camargo MC, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics of Epstein‐Barr virus‐positive gastric cancer in Latvia. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;31(11):1328‐1333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. BenAyed‐Guerfali D, Ayadi W, Miladi‐Abdennadher I, et al. Characteristics of epstein barr virus variants associated with gastric carcinoma in Southern Tunisia. Virol J. 2011;8(1):500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Gullo I, Oliveira P, Athelogou M, et al. New insights into the inflamed tumor immune microenvironment of gastric cancer with lymphoid stroma: from morphology and digital analysis to gene expression. Gastric Cancer. 2019;22(1):77‐90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Guo C, Wei J, Scott RS, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of Epstein‐Barr virus associated gastric carcinoma in gansu province, northwest China with mRNA expression of glycoprotein BMRF2. J Med Virol. 2020;92(3):356‐363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Huang SC, Ng KF, Yeh TS, et al. Subtraction of Epstein–Barr virus and microsatellite instability genotypes from the lauren histotypes: combined molecular and histologic subtyping with clinicopathological and prognostic significance validated in a cohort of 1,248 cases. Int J Cancer. 2019;145(12):3218‐3230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Irkkan C, Balci S, Güler Tezel G, Akinci B, Yalcin B, Güler G. Comparison of clinicopathologic parameters and survivals between Epstein‐Barr virus–positive and Her2‐positive gastric cancers. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2017;25(9):609‐614. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Jung IM, Chung JK, Kim YA, et al. Epstein‐Barr virus, Beta‐Catenin, and e‐cadherin in gastric. J Korean Med Sci. 2007;22(5):855. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Kang HJ, Lee I‐S, Park Y‐S, et al. Biomarkers of EBV‐positive gastric cancers: loss of PTEN expression is associated with poor prognosis and nodal metastasis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(11):3684‐3692. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Kawazoe A, Kuwata T, Kuboki Y, et al. Clinicopathological features of programmed death ligand 1 expression with tumor‐infiltrating lymphocyte, mismatch repair, and Epstein–Barr virus status in a large cohort of gastric cancer patients. Gastric Cancer. 2017;20(3):407‐415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Kawazoe A, Shitara K, Kuboki Y, et al. Clinicopathological features of 22C3 PD‐L1 expression with mismatch repair, Epstein‐Barr virus status, and cancer genome alterations in metastatic gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2019;22(1):69‐76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Kim RH, Chang MS, Kim HJ, et al. Medical history and lifestyle factors contributing to Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated gastric carcinoma and conventional gastric carcinoma in Korea. Anticancer Res. 2010;30(6):2469‐2475. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Kim JY, Bae B‐N, Kang G, Kim H‐J, Park K. Cytokine expression associated with Helicobacter pylori and Epstein‐Barr virus infection in gastric carcinogenesis. APMIS. 2017;125(9):808‐815. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Kim Y, Ahn JM, Bae WJ, Sung CO, Lee D. Functional loss of ARID1A is tightly associated with high PD‐L1 expression in gastric cancer. Int J Cancer. 2019c;145(4):916‐926. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Kim TS, da Silva E, Coit DG, Tang LH. Intratumoral immune response to gastric cancer varies by molecular and histologic subtype. Am J Surg Pathol. 2019b;43(6):851‐860. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Kim JY, Kim WG, Kwon CH, Park DY. Differences in immune contextures among different molecular subtypes of gastric cancer and their prognostic impact. Gastric Cancer. 2019a;22(6):1164‐1175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Kim DH, Bae GE, Suh KS, et al. Clinical significance of tumor and immune cell PD‐L1 expression in gastric adenocarcinoma. In Vivo. 2020;34(6):3171‐3180. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Kim B, Kővári B, Kim H, Boulware DC, Pimiento J, Lauwers GY. Comparative molecular subtypes of index and metachronous gastric adenocarcinomas: a study of 42 Korean patients. Mod Pathol. 2021;34(9):1728‐1737. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Koriyama C, Akiba S, Shimaoka S, Itoh T, Akiyama S, Eizuru Y. Frequent expression of thymidine phosphorylase in Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated gastric carcinoma of diffuse type. Anticancer Res. 2010;30(6):2431‐2437. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Koriyama C. E‐cadherin and beta‐catenin expression in Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated gastric carcinoma and their prognostic significance. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13(29):3925‐3931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Ksiaa F, Ziadi S, Gacem RB, Dhiab MB, Trimeche M. Correlation between DNA methyltransferases expression and Epstein‐Barr virus, JC polyomavirus and Helicobacter pylori infections in gastric carcinomas. Neoplasma. 2014;61(6):710‐717. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Leila Z, Arabzadeh SA, Afshar RM, Afshar AA, Mollaei HR. Detection of Epstein‐Barr virus and cytomegalovirus in gastric cancers in kerman, Iran. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prevent. 2016;17(5):2423‐2428. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Lima VP. H pylori (CagA) and Epstein‐Barr virus infection in gastric carcinomas: correlation with p53 mutation and c‐Myc, Bcl‐2 and Bax expression. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14(6):884‐891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Liu Y, Yang W, Pan Y, Ji J, Lu Z, Ke Y. Genome‐wide analysis of Epstein‐Barr virus (EBV) isolated from EBV‐associated gastric carcinoma (EBVaGC). Oncotarget. 2016;7(4):4903‐4914. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Ma J, Li J, Hao Y, et al. Differentiated tumor immune microenvironment of Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated and negative gastric cancer: implication in prognosis and immunotherapy. Oncotarget. 2017;8(40):67094‐67103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Martinson H, Mallari D, Richter C, et al. Molecular classification of gastric cancer among Alaska native people. Cancers. 2020;12(1):198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Moore A, Hikri E, Goshen‐Lago T, et al. Young‐onset gastric cancer and Epstein‐Barr virus (EBV)—a major player in the pathogenesis? BMC Cancer. 2020;20(1):34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Na SJ, Park HL, O JH, Lee SY, Song KY, Kim SH. Correlation between infection status of Epstein‐Barr virus and 18F‐fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in patients with advanced gastric cancer. In Vivo. 2017;31(4):749‐753. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73. Nogueira C, Mota M, Gradiz R, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated gastric carcinomas in Portugal. Infect Agent Cancer. 2017;12:41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Noh B‐J, Kim JH, Eom D‐W. Prognostic significance of categorizing gastric carcinoma by PD‐L1 expression and tumor infiltrating lymphocytes. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2018;48(6):695‐706. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75. Nshizirungu JP, Bennis S, Mellouki I, et al. Reproduction of the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Asian Cancer Research Group (ACRG) Gastric Cancer Molecular Classifications and Their Association with Clinicopathological Characteristics and Overall Survival in Moroccan Patients. Dis Markers. 2021;2021:1‐12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76. de Fátima Aquino Moreira‐Nunes C, de Souza Almeida Titan Martins CN, Feio D, et al. PD‐L1 expression associated with Epstein‐Barr virus status and patients' survival in a large cohort of gastric cancer patients in Northern Brazil. Cancers. 2021;13(13):3107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77. Osumi H, Kawachi H, Yoshio T, et al. Epstein‐Barr virus status is a promising biomarker for endoscopic resection in early gastric cancer: proposal of a novel therapeutic strategy. J Gastroenterol. 2019;54(9):774‐783. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78. Pereira MA, Ramos MFKP, Faraj SF, et al. Clinicopathological and prognostic features of Epstein‐Barr virus infection, microsatellite instability, and PD‐L1 expression in gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2018;117(5):829‐839. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79. Di Pinto F, Armentano R, Arborea G, Schena N, Donghia R, Valentini AM. Are immunohistochemical markers useful in phenotypic gastric cancer classification? Oncology. 2020;98(8):566‐574. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80. Ribeiro J, Malta M, Galaghar A, et al. Epstein‐Barr virus is absent in gastric superficial neoplastic lesions. Virchows Arch. 2019;475(6):757‐762. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81. Ribeiro J, Oliveira A, Malta M, et al. Clinical and pathological characterization of Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated gastric carcinomas in Portugal. World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23(40):7292‐7302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82. Roh CK, Choi YY, Choi S, et al. Single patient classifier assay, microsatellite instability, and Epstein‐Barr virus status predict clinical outcomes in stage II/III gastric cancer: results from CLASSIC trial. Yonsei Med J. 2019;60(2):132‐139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83. Rihane FE, Erguibi D, Elyamine O, Abumsimir B, Ennaji MM, Chehab F. Helicobacter pylori co‐infection with Epstein‐Barr virus and the risk of developing gastric adenocarcinoma at an early age: observational study infectious agents and cancer. Anna Med Surg. 2021;68:102651. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84. Ryan JL, Morgan DR, Dominguez RL, et al. High levels of Epstein‐Barr virus DNA in latently infected gastric adenocarcinoma. Lab Invest. 2009;89(1):80‐90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85. Saito R, Abe H, Kunita A, Yamashita H, Seto Y, Fukayama M. Overexpression and gene amplification of PD‐L1 in cancer cells and PD‐L1+ immune cells in Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated gastric cancer: the prognostic implications. Mod Pathol. 2017;30(3):427‐439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86. Setia N, Ahn S, Han HS, Park DY, Lauwers GY. Predictive value of WHO classification for PD‐L1 and Her2/Neu expression and distinct associations with protein expression based classification in gastric carcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2019;94:64‐70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87. Shen H, Zhong M, Wang W, et al. EBV infection and MSI status significantly influence the clinical outcomes of gastric cancer patients. Clin Chim Acta. 2017;471:216‐221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88. Siciliano MC, Tornambè S, Cevenini G, et al. EBV persistence in gastric cancer cases conventionally classified as EBER‐ISH negative. Infect Agent Cancer. 2022;17(1):57. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89. Song H‐J, Srivastava A, Lee J, et al. Host inflammatory response predicts survival of patients with Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated gastric carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2010;139(1):84‐92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90. Sun Y, Yu W, Guan W, et al. Integrated assessment of PD‐L1 expression and molecular classification facilitates therapy selection and prognosis prediction in gastric cancer. Cancer Manag Res. 2019;11:6397‐6410. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91. Sundar R, Qamra A, Tan ALK, et al. Transcriptional analysis of immune genes in Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated gastric cancer and association with clinical outcomes. Gastric Cancer. 2018;21(6):1064‐1070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92. Trimeche M, Ksiâa F, Ziadi S, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated gastric carcinomas in Tunisia. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;21(9):1001‐1007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93. Truong CD, Feng W, Li W, et al. Characteristics of Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated gastric cancer: a study of 235 cases at a comprehensive cancer center in U.S.A. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2009;28(1):14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94. Tsai C‐Y, Liu YY, Liu K‐H, et al. Comprehensive profiling of virus microRNAs of Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated gastric carcinoma: highlighting the interactions of ebv‐Bart9 and host tumor cells. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;32(1):82‐91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95. Ushiku T, Chong J‐M, Uozaki H, et al. p73 gene promoter methylation in Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated gastric carcinoma. Int J Cancer. 2007;120(1):60‐66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96. Shinozaki‐Ushiku A, Kunita A, Isogai M, et al. Profiling of virus‐encoded microRNAs in Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated gastric carcinoma and their roles in gastric carcinogenesis. J Virol. 2015;89(10):5581‐5591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97. Valentini AM, Di Pinto F, Coletta S, Guerra V, Armentano R, Caruso ML. Tumor microenvironment immune types in gastric cancer are associated with mismatch repair however, not HER2 status. Oncol Lett. 2019;18(2):1775‐1785. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98. Wanvimonsuk S, Thitiwanichpiwong P, Keelawat S, Mutirangura A, Kitkumthorn N. Distribution of the Epstein‐Barr virus in the normal stomach and gastric lesions in Thai population. J Med Virol. 2019;91(3):444‐449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99. Yanagi A, Nishikawa J, Shimokuri K, et al. Clinicopathologic characteristics of Epstein‐Barr Virus‐Associated gastric cancer over the past decade in Japan. Microorganisms. 2019;7(9):305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100. Yang N, Wu Y, Jin M, et al. Microsatellite instability and Epstein‐Barr virus combined with PD‐L1 could serve as a potential strategy for predicting the prognosis and efficacy of postoperative chemotherapy in gastric cancer. PeerJ. 2021;9:e11481. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101. Yoon J‐Y, Sy K, Brezden‐Masley C, Streutker CJ. Histo‐ and immunohistochemistry‐based estimation of the TCGA and ACRG molecular subtypes for gastric carcinoma and their prognostic significance: A single‐institution study. PLoS One. 2019;14(12):e0224812. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102. Zhang Z‐X, Guo D‐L, Jin M, et al. No TitleInvasion‐related signal pathways in Epstein‐Barr virus (EBV)‐associated gastric carcinoma. nt J Clin Exp Med. 2016;9(2):3544‐3550. [Google Scholar]
  • 103. Zhang Y, He D, Tan C, Dong M, Zhou L, Shao C. Differential expression of HER2 and downstream proteins in prediction of advanced tumor phenotypes and overall survival of patients with Epstein‐Barr virus‐positive vs. negative gastric cancers. Pathol ‐ Res Pract. 2019;215(11):152675. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104. Zhao J, Jin H, Cheung KF, et al. Zinc finger E‐box binding factor 1 plays a central role in regulating Epstein‐Barr virus (EBV) latent‐lytic switch and acts as a therapeutic target in EBV‐associated gastric cancer. Cancer. 2012;118(4):924‐936. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105. Zhou H, Tan S, Li H, Lin X. Expression and significance of EBV, ARID1A and PIK3CA in gastric carcinoma. Mol Med Rep. 2019;19(3):2125‐2136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106. Zhu S, Sun P, Zhang Y, Yan L, Luo B. Expression of c‐myc and PCNA in Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated gastric carcinoma. Exp Ther Med. 2013;5(4):1030‐1034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107. Zebardast A, Pazhoohan M, Cherati AY, et al. Higher viral load of Epstein‐Barr virus in gastric cancer compared with non‐cancerous gastroduodenal tissues. Infez Med. 2022;30(2):263‐271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108. Hirabayashi M, Georges D, Clifford GM, de Martel C. Estimating the global burden of Epstein‐Barr Virus–Associated gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;21(4):922‐930. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109. Lee J‐H, Kim S‐H, Han S‐H, An J‐S, Lee E‐S, Kim Y‐S. Clinicopathological and molecular characteristics of Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated gastric carcinoma: a meta‐analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;24(3):354‐365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110. Li S, Du H, Wang Z, Zhou L, Zhao X, Zeng Y. Meta‐analysis of the relationship between Epstein‐Barr virus infection and clinicopathological features of patients with gastric carcinoma. Sci China Life Sci. 2010;53(4):524‐530. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111. Qiao Y‐W, Zhao XQ, Liu J, Yang WJ. Clinicopathological features of Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated gastric carcinoma: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J B.U.ON. 2019;24(3):1092‐1099. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112. Coscia F, Doll S, Bech JM, et al. A streamlined mass spectrometry–based proteomics workflow for large‐scale FFPE tissue analysis. J Pathol. 2020;251(1):100‐112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113. Imai S, Koizumi S, Sugiura M, et al. Gastric carcinoma: monoclonal epithelial malignant cells expressing Epstein‐Barr virus latent infection protein. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 1994;91(19):9131‐9135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114. Zheng X, Wang R, Zhang X, et al. A deep learning model and human‐machine fusion for prediction of EBV‐associated gastric cancer from histopathology. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):2790. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115. Deyhimi P, Kalantari M. Study of Epstein‐Barr virus expression in Burkitt's lymphoma by polymerase chain reaction and in situ hybridization: A study in Iran. Dent Res J. 2014;11(3):380‐385. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116. Chen X‐Z, Chen H, Castro FA, Hu J‐K, Brenner H. Epstein–Barr virus infection and gastric cancer. Medicine. 2015;94(20):e792. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article [and/or] its supplementary materials.

Articles from Health Science Reports are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES