Alcides Chaux1, Antonio L Cubilla2, Michael C Haffner3, Kristen L Lecksell4, Rajni Sharma4, Arthur L Burnett5, George J Netto6. 1. Department of Pathology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Norte University School of Medicine, Asuncion, Paraguay. Electronic address: alcideschaux@uninorte.edu.py. 2. Instituto de Patología e Investigación, Asuncion, Paraguay. 3. Department Oncology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 4. Department of Pathology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 5. Department Urology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 6. Department of Pathology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Department Urology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Department Oncology, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Infection by high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) plays an important role in the pathogenesis of penile cancer in approximately 50% of the patients. The gold standard for human papillomavirus (HPV) detection is the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay. However, technical requirements and associated costs preclude the worldwide use of PCR assays on a routine basis. Herein, we evaluated the predictive abilities of tumor morphology, immunohistochemistry for p16(INK4a) expression, and in situ hybridization (ISH) for HR-HPV detection in defining HPV status, as established by PCR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tissue samples from 48 patients with HPV-positive penile squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) were included in 4 tissue microarrays (TMA). RESULTS: Sensitivities and specificities were as follows: tumor morphology, 70% and 68%; p16(INK4a) immunohistochemistry, 65% and 90%; HR-HPV ISH, 47% and 100%. Regarding combinations of the predictors, the best performance was seen when HR-HPV ISH and p16(INK4a) immunohistochemistry were combined, regardless of the tumor morphology: sensitivity, 88%; specificity, 64%; area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUC) curve, 0.83. Combinations of tumor morphology with p16(INK4a) immunohistochemistry or with HR-HPV ISH performed similarly well. CONCLUSIONS: In penile SCC, both p16(INK4a) immunohistochemistry and ISH for HR-HPV increase the predictive ability of routine morphology in defining HPV status. These tests can be interpreted differentially, depending on the necessity of a higher sensitivity or a higher specificity. For research/screening studies, we recommend combining tumor morphology, p16(INK4a) immunohistochemistry, and HR-HPV ISH. To increase sensitivity, positivity in any of these predictors should be considered as indicative of HPV infection. For routine diagnosis of clinical cases, criteria should be more stringent, and, to achieve the highest specificity in classifying a case as HPV-related, all predictors should be consistently positive. The data generated in the present study could be used in algorithms for defining HPV status in penile carcinomas.
OBJECTIVES: Infection by high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) plays an important role in the pathogenesis of penile cancer in approximately 50% of the patients. The gold standard for human papillomavirus (HPV) detection is the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay. However, technical requirements and associated costs preclude the worldwide use of PCR assays on a routine basis. Herein, we evaluated the predictive abilities of tumor morphology, immunohistochemistry for p16(INK4a) expression, and in situ hybridization (ISH) for HR-HPV detection in defining HPV status, as established by PCR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tissue samples from 48 patients with HPV-positive penile squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) were included in 4 tissue microarrays (TMA). RESULTS: Sensitivities and specificities were as follows: tumor morphology, 70% and 68%; p16(INK4a) immunohistochemistry, 65% and 90%; HR-HPV ISH, 47% and 100%. Regarding combinations of the predictors, the best performance was seen when HR-HPV ISH and p16(INK4a) immunohistochemistry were combined, regardless of the tumor morphology: sensitivity, 88%; specificity, 64%; area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUC) curve, 0.83. Combinations of tumor morphology with p16(INK4a) immunohistochemistry or with HR-HPV ISH performed similarly well. CONCLUSIONS: In penile SCC, both p16(INK4a) immunohistochemistry and ISH for HR-HPV increase the predictive ability of routine morphology in defining HPV status. These tests can be interpreted differentially, depending on the necessity of a higher sensitivity or a higher specificity. For research/screening studies, we recommend combining tumor morphology, p16(INK4a) immunohistochemistry, and HR-HPV ISH. To increase sensitivity, positivity in any of these predictors should be considered as indicative of HPV infection. For routine diagnosis of clinical cases, criteria should be more stringent, and, to achieve the highest specificity in classifying a case as HPV-related, all predictors should be consistently positive. The data generated in the present study could be used in algorithms for defining HPV status in penile carcinomas.
Authors: Nikki S Vyas; Christine M Pierce Campbell; Rahel Mathew; Martha Abrahamsen; Kaisa Van der Kooi; Drazen M Jukic; Mark H Stoler; Luisa L Villa; Roberto Carvalho da Silva; Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce; Manuel Quiterio; Jorge Salmeron; Bradley A Sirak; Donna J Ingles; Anna R Giuliano; Jane L Messina Journal: J Med Virol Date: 2015-05-06 Impact factor: 2.327
Authors: Julie Steinestel; Andreas Al Ghazal; Annette Arndt; Thomas J Schnoeller; Andres J Schrader; Peter Moeller; Konrad Steinestel Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Sarah Rosanne Ottenhof; Rosa Sanne Djajadiningrat; Helene Hoegsbro Thygesen; Pamela Josephine Jakobs; Katarzyna Jóźwiak; Anne Marijne Heeren; Jeroen de Jong; Joyce Sanders; Simon Horenblas; Ekaterina Straschimirova Jordanova Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2018-06-11 Impact factor: 7.561