BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancers typically have younger age of onset, limited tobacco exposure, and more favorable prognosis than HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancers. We assessed whether HPV-positive and HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancers have consistent differences in pretreatment imaging characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of 136 pretreatment CT examinations of paired HPV-positive and HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancers matched for T stage, tumor subsite, and smoking status was performed with the reviewing radiologist blinded to HPV status and clinical stage. Demographic/clinical characteristics and imaging characteristics of primary lesions and metastatic nodal disease were compared by use of Fisher exact testing. The McNemar χ(2) test was used for the matched-pair analysis. RESULTS: By imaging, HPV-negative tumors were more likely to demonstrate invasion of adjacent muscle (26% versus 6%, P = .013). HPV-positive primary tumors were more likely to be enhancing and exophytic with well-defined borders, whereas HPV-negative primary tumors were more likely to be isoattenuated and demonstrate ill-defined borders, though these results were not statistically significant. HPV-positive tumors were more likely to demonstrate cystic nodal metastases than HPV-negative tumors (36% versus 9%, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: In this matched and blinded analysis of the imaging differences between HPV-positive and HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancers, HPV-positive carcinomas often had primary lesions with well-defined borders and cystic nodal metastases, whereas HPV-negative primaries more often had poorly defined borders and invasion of adjacent muscle.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancers typically have younger age of onset, limited tobacco exposure, and more favorable prognosis than HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancers. We assessed whether HPV-positive and HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancers have consistent differences in pretreatment imaging characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of 136 pretreatment CT examinations of paired HPV-positive and HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancers matched for T stage, tumor subsite, and smoking status was performed with the reviewing radiologist blinded to HPV status and clinical stage. Demographic/clinical characteristics and imaging characteristics of primary lesions and metastatic nodal disease were compared by use of Fisher exact testing. The McNemar χ(2) test was used for the matched-pair analysis. RESULTS: By imaging, HPV-negative tumors were more likely to demonstrate invasion of adjacent muscle (26% versus 6%, P = .013). HPV-positive primary tumors were more likely to be enhancing and exophytic with well-defined borders, whereas HPV-negative primary tumors were more likely to be isoattenuated and demonstrate ill-defined borders, though these results were not statistically significant. HPV-positive tumors were more likely to demonstrate cystic nodal metastases than HPV-negative tumors (36% versus 9%, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: In this matched and blinded analysis of the imaging differences between HPV-positive and HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancers, HPV-positive carcinomas often had primary lesions with well-defined borders and cystic nodal metastases, whereas HPV-negative primaries more often had poorly defined borders and invasion of adjacent muscle.
Authors: André Lopes Carvalho; Inês Nobuko Nishimoto; Joseph A Califano; Luiz Paulo Kowalski Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2005-05-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Paul M Weinberger; Ziwei Yu; Bruce G Haffty; Diane Kowalski; Malini Harigopal; Janet Brandsma; Clarence Sasaki; John Joe; Robert L Camp; David L Rimm; Amanda Psyrri Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-01-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gypsyamber D'Souza; Aimee R Kreimer; Raphael Viscidi; Michael Pawlita; Carole Fakhry; Wayne M Koch; William H Westra; Maura L Gillison Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-05-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: K D Olsen; M Caruso; R L Foote; R J Stanley; J E Lewis; S J Buskirk; D A Frassica; L W DeSanto; W M O'Fallon; V R Hoverman Journal: Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 1994-12
Authors: S Regauer; S Mannweiler; W Anderhuber; A Gotschuli; A Berghold; J Schachenreiter; R Jakse; A Beham Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Daniel G Deschler; Jeremy D Richmon; Samir S Khariwala; Robert L Ferris; Marilene B Wang Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Chad Tang; Clifton D Fuller; Adam S Garden; Musaddiq J Awan; Rivka R Colen; William H Morrison; Steven J Frank; Beth M Beadle; Jack Phan; Erich M Sturgis; Mark E Zafereo; Randal S Weber; David I Rosenthal; G Brandon Gunn Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2014-11-28 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Timo Carpén; Kauko Saarilahti; Caj Haglund; Antti Markkola; Jussi Tarkkanen; Jaana Hagström; Petri Mattila; Antti Mäkitie Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Sarah C Cantrell; Holly H Reid; Guojun Li; Qingyi Wei; Erich M Sturgis; Lawrence E Ginsberg Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2014 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: F Scasso; G Ferrari; G C DE Vincentiis; A Arosio; S Bottero; M Carretti; A Ciardo; S Cocuzza; A Colombo; B Conti; A Cordone; M DE Ciccio; E Delehaye; L Della Vecchia; I DE Macina; C Dentone; P DI Mauro; R Dorati; R Fazio; A Ferrari; G Ferrea; S Giannantonio; I Genta; M Giuliani; D Lucidi; L Maiolino; G Marini; P Marsella; D Meucci; T Modena; B Montemurri; A Odone; S Palma; M L Panatta; M Piemonte; P Pisani; S Pisani; L Prioglio; A Scorpecci; L Scotto DI Santillo; A Serra; C Signorelli; E Sitzia; M L Tropiano; M Trozzi; F M Tucci; L Vezzosi; B Viaggi Journal: Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.124