PURPOSE: Patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)-containing oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OSCC) have a better prognosis than patients with HPV-negative OSCC. This may be attributed to different genetic pathways promoting cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We used comparative genomic hybridization to identify critical genetic changes in 60 selected OSCC, 28 of which were associated with HPV-16 as determined by HPV-specific PCR and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis and positive p16(INK4A) immunostaining. The results were correlated with HPV status and clinical data from patients. RESULTS: Two thirds of OSCC harbored gain at 3q26.3-qter irrespective of HPV status. In HPV-negative tumors this alteration was associated with advanced tumor stage (P=0.013). In comparison with HPV-related OSCC, the HPV-negative tumors harbored: (a) a higher number of chromosomal alterations and amplifications (P=0.03 and 0.039, respectively); (b) significantly more losses at 3p, 5q, 9p, 15q, and 18q, and gains/amplifications at 11q13 (P=0.002, 0.03; <0.001, 0.02, 0.004, and 0.001, respectively); and (c) less often 16q losses and Xp gains (P=0.02 and 0.03). Survival analysis revealed a significantly better disease-free survival for HPV-related OSCC (P=0.02), whereas chromosome amplification was an unfavorable prognostic indicator for disease-free and overall survival (P=0.01 and 0.05, respectively). Interestingly, 16q loss, predominantly identified in HPV-related OSCC, was a strong indicator of favorable outcome (overall survival, P=0.008; disease-free survival, P=0.01) and none of these patients had a tumor recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic signatures of HPV-related and HPV-unrelated OSCC are different and most likely underlie differences in tumor development and progression. In addition, distinct chromosomal alterations have prognostic significance.
PURPOSE:Patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)-containing oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OSCC) have a better prognosis than patients with HPV-negative OSCC. This may be attributed to different genetic pathways promoting cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We used comparative genomic hybridization to identify critical genetic changes in 60 selected OSCC, 28 of which were associated with HPV-16 as determined by HPV-specific PCR and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis and positive p16(INK4A) immunostaining. The results were correlated with HPV status and clinical data from patients. RESULTS: Two thirds of OSCC harbored gain at 3q26.3-qter irrespective of HPV status. In HPV-negative tumors this alteration was associated with advanced tumor stage (P=0.013). In comparison with HPV-related OSCC, the HPV-negative tumors harbored: (a) a higher number of chromosomal alterations and amplifications (P=0.03 and 0.039, respectively); (b) significantly more losses at 3p, 5q, 9p, 15q, and 18q, and gains/amplifications at 11q13 (P=0.002, 0.03; <0.001, 0.02, 0.004, and 0.001, respectively); and (c) less often 16q losses and Xp gains (P=0.02 and 0.03). Survival analysis revealed a significantly better disease-free survival for HPV-related OSCC (P=0.02), whereas chromosome amplification was an unfavorable prognostic indicator for disease-free and overall survival (P=0.01 and 0.05, respectively). Interestingly, 16q loss, predominantly identified in HPV-related OSCC, was a strong indicator of favorable outcome (overall survival, P=0.008; disease-free survival, P=0.01) and none of these patients had a tumor recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic signatures of HPV-related and HPV-unrelated OSCC are different and most likely underlie differences in tumor development and progression. In addition, distinct chromosomal alterations have prognostic significance.
Authors: K Kian Ang; Jonathan Harris; Richard Wheeler; Randal Weber; David I Rosenthal; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tân; William H Westra; Christine H Chung; Richard C Jordan; Charles Lu; Harold Kim; Rita Axelrod; C Craig Silverman; Kevin P Redmond; Maura L Gillison Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-06-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M Reuschenbach; S Wagner; N Würdemann; S J Sharma; E-S Prigge; M Sauer; A Wittig; C Wittekindt; M von Knebel Doeberitz; J P Klussmann Journal: HNO Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 1.284
Authors: Frank Ziemann; Andrea Arenz; Stefanie Preising; Claus Wittekindt; Jens P Klussmann; Rita Engenhart-Cabillic; Andrea Wittig Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2015-02-15 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: S Chawla; L A Loevner; S G Kim; W-T Hwang; S Wang; G Verma; S Mohan; V LiVolsi; H Quon; H Poptani Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: C Ayoub; C Wasylyk; Y Li; E Thomas; L Marisa; A Robé; M Roux; J Abecassis; A de Reyniès; B Wasylyk Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-07-27 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: K J Purdie; C A Harwood; K Gibbon; T Chaplin; B D Young; J B Cazier; N Singh; I M Leigh; C M Proby Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-03-16 Impact factor: 7.640