Heather H Nelson1, Michael Pawlita2, Dominique S Michaud3, Michael McClean4, Scott M Langevin5, Melissa N Eliot6, Karl T Kelsey7. 1. Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis2Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 2. Research Program Infection and Cancer, German Cancer Research Center, DKFZ, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Environmental Health, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio. 6. Department of Epidemiology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 7. Department of Epidemiology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island8Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Pathology-based measures of human papillomavirus (HPV) status are routinely obtained in the care of head and neck cancer and are clearly associated with patient outcome for cancers of the oropharynx. However, it is unclear if HPV status is of high value for cancers of the larynx and oral cavity. In addition, it is possible to assess HPV infection using serology-based methods; however, the suitability of this pathology-independent measure for predicting patient outcome in head and neck cancer is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether immunologic response to HPV16 is associated with patient survival across anatomic sites, independent of smoking and drinking history. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a population-based study of 1054 patients with head and neck cancer in the greater Boston, Massachusetts, area (1999-2003, 2006-2011). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: All-cause survival in relation to HPV16 E6 and E7 seropositivity. RESULTS: The 1054 patients reflected the demographics of those treated in this timeframe (75% male; mean age, 59 years). Seropositivity was very strongly associated with improved survival overall (hazard ratio HR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.24-0.45; P < .001), with no evidence that the magnitude of immune response, as assessed by titer levels, effected outcome. Seropositivity was associated with improved patient survival across all head and neck cancer sites: HR for oropharynx cancer, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.18-0.39; for oral cavity cancer, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.18-0.80; and for larynx cancer, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.10-0.85. In addition, the associations with seropositivity were similar across smoking and/or drinking exposure groups: HRfor low exposure, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.20-1.36; for moderate exposure, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.70; for heavy exposure, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.73. In a subset of 162 patients with both HPV serology and p16 immunohistochemical (IHC) measures available, both measures were similarly associated with survival in the oropharynx (HR for serology, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.47; for p16 measures, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.46), whereas only serology was associated with outcome when considering all head and neck cancer cases (HR for serology,0.49; 95% CI, 0.23-1.04; for p16, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.30-1.42). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Collectively, these data suggest that a positive serologic response to HPV16 oncoproteins may be the best approach to assess HPV-disease for clinical outcome because it is associated with survival for all types of disease and is a marker that is not dependent on pathology material.
IMPORTANCE: Pathology-based measures of human papillomavirus (HPV) status are routinely obtained in the care of head and neck cancer and are clearly associated with patient outcome for cancers of the oropharynx. However, it is unclear if HPV status is of high value for cancers of the larynx and oral cavity. In addition, it is possible to assess HPV infection using serology-based methods; however, the suitability of this pathology-independent measure for predicting patient outcome in head and neck cancer is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether immunologic response to HPV16 is associated with patient survival across anatomic sites, independent of smoking and drinking history. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a population-based study of 1054 patients with head and neck cancer in the greater Boston, Massachusetts, area (1999-2003, 2006-2011). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: All-cause survival in relation to HPV16 E6 and E7 seropositivity. RESULTS: The 1054 patients reflected the demographics of those treated in this timeframe (75% male; mean age, 59 years). Seropositivity was very strongly associated with improved survival overall (hazard ratio HR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.24-0.45; P < .001), with no evidence that the magnitude of immune response, as assessed by titer levels, effected outcome. Seropositivity was associated with improved patient survival across all head and neck cancer sites: HR for oropharynx cancer, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.18-0.39; for oral cavity cancer, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.18-0.80; and for larynx cancer, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.10-0.85. In addition, the associations with seropositivity were similar across smoking and/or drinking exposure groups: HRfor low exposure, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.20-1.36; for moderate exposure, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.70; for heavy exposure, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.73. In a subset of 162 patients with both HPV serology and p16 immunohistochemical (IHC) measures available, both measures were similarly associated with survival in the oropharynx (HR for serology, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.47; for p16 measures, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.46), whereas only serology was associated with outcome when considering all head and neck cancer cases (HR for serology,0.49; 95% CI, 0.23-1.04; for p16, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.30-1.42). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Collectively, these data suggest that a positive serologic response to HPV16 oncoproteins may be the best approach to assess HPV-disease for clinical outcome because it is associated with survival for all types of disease and is a marker that is not dependent on pathology material.
Authors: Erin E Cook; Susan T Gershman; Jane J Kim; Rulla M Tamimi; R Monina Klevens; Michelle D Holmes Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Anjelica Hodgson; Kay J Park; Bojana Djordjevic; Brooke E Howitt; Marisa R Nucci; Esther Oliva; Simona Stolnicu; Bin Xu; Robert A Soslow; Carlos Parra-Herran Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Reinhard R Beichel; Ethan J Ulrich; Brian J Smith; Christian Bauer; Bartley Brown; Thomas Casavant; John J Sunderland; Michael M Graham; John M Buatti Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anish Sharma; Alice L Tang; Vinita Takiar; Trisha M Wise-Draper; Scott M Langevin Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 6.639