Angela Hong1, Xiaoying Zhang2, Deanna Jones3, Anne-Sophie Veillard4, Mei Zhang5, Andrew Martin4, J Guy Lyons6, C Soon Lee7, Barbara Rose3. 1. Central Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Australia; Department of Radiation Oncology, Lifehouse, Australia. Electronic address: angela.hong@sydney.edu.au. 2. Department of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Australia. 3. Department of Anatomical Pathology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Australia. 4. NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Australia. 5. Central Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Australia; Department of Radiation Oncology, Lifehouse, Australia. 6. Central Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Australia. 7. Cancer Services, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the rate and type of p53 mutation in oropharyngeal cancer (OSCC). Relationships were sought between human papillomavirus (HPV) status and p53 mutation. The role of p53 mutation as a prognostic factor independent of HPV status and as a modifier of the effect of HPV on outcomes was also examined. METHODS: The HPV status of 202 cases was determined by HPV DNA by RT-PCR and p16 immunohistochemistry. P53 mutation in exon 5-8 was determined by pyrosequencing. Findings were correlated with known clinicopathological factors and outcomes. RESULTS: 48% of the cases were HPV positive and they were significantly less likely to have a p53 mutation than HPV-negative OSCCs (25.8% vs 46.7%, p=0.0021). Mutation was most common in exon 5. Among patients with HPV-positive OSCC, there was no significant difference in p53 mutation by smoking status (22.2% for never smokers and 30.8% for current or ex-smokers). Patients with p53 mutant OSCC had significantly worse overall survival (p=0.01). There was no statistical evidence that p53 mutation modified the effect of HPV status on outcomes. In the multivariate analysis, positive HPV status remained the strongest predictor of outcomes. p53 mutation status was not a significant predictor of outcome after adjusting for age, gender, T stage, N stage and HPV status. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, HPV-positive OSCC are less likely to have mutant p53 than HPV-negative OSCC. Our study did not show any evidence that p53 mutation could modify the effect of HPV status on outcomes.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the rate and type of p53 mutation in oropharyngeal cancer (OSCC). Relationships were sought between human papillomavirus (HPV) status and p53 mutation. The role of p53 mutation as a prognostic factor independent of HPV status and as a modifier of the effect of HPV on outcomes was also examined. METHODS: The HPV status of 202 cases was determined by HPV DNA by RT-PCR and p16 immunohistochemistry. P53 mutation in exon 5-8 was determined by pyrosequencing. Findings were correlated with known clinicopathological factors and outcomes. RESULTS: 48% of the cases were HPV positive and they were significantly less likely to have a p53 mutation than HPV-negative OSCCs (25.8% vs 46.7%, p=0.0021). Mutation was most common in exon 5. Among patients with HPV-positive OSCC, there was no significant difference in p53 mutation by smoking status (22.2% for never smokers and 30.8% for current or ex-smokers). Patients with p53 mutant OSCC had significantly worse overall survival (p=0.01). There was no statistical evidence that p53 mutation modified the effect of HPV status on outcomes. In the multivariate analysis, positive HPV status remained the strongest predictor of outcomes. p53 mutation status was not a significant predictor of outcome after adjusting for age, gender, T stage, N stage and HPV status. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, HPV-positive OSCC are less likely to have mutant p53 than HPV-negative OSCC. Our study did not show any evidence that p53 mutation could modify the effect of HPV status on outcomes.
Authors: Angela M Hong; Ricardo E Vilain; Sarah Romanes; Jean Yang; Elizabeth Smith; Deanna Jones; Richard A Scolyer; C Soon Lee; Mei Zhang; Barbara Rose Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-11-22
Authors: Lisa Jamieson; Gail Garvey; Joanne Hedges; Amanda Mitchell; Terry Dunbar; Cathy Leane; Isaac Hill; Kate Warren; Alex Brown; Xiangqun Ju; David Roder; Richard Logan; Newell Johnson; Megan Smith; Annika Antonsson; Karen Canfell Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2018-06-08
Authors: Frans J Mulder; Damiana D C G Pierssens; Laura W J Baijens; Bernd Kremer; Ernst-Jan M Speel Journal: Head Neck Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Anders Näsman; Stefan Holzhauser; Ourania N Kostopoulou; Mark Zupancic; Andreas Ährlund-Richter; Juan Du; Tina Dalianis Journal: Viruses Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 5.048