Krystle A Lang Kuhs1,2, Aimée R Kreimer1, Sumita Trivedi3, Dana Holzinger4, Michael Pawlita4, Ruth M Pfeiffer1, Sandra P Gibson5, Nicole C Schmitt6,7, Allan Hildesheim1, Tim Waterboer4, Robert L Ferris5. 1. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 3. Department of Otolaryngology and Cancer Immunology Program, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Division of Molecular Diagnostics of Oncogenic Infections, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 6. Department of Otolaryngology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 7. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus 16 (HPV16) E6 antibodies may be an early marker of the diagnosis and recurrence of human papillomavirus-driven oropharyngeal cancer (HPV-OPC). METHODS: This study identified 161 incident oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) cases diagnosed at the University of Pittsburgh (2003-2013) with pretreatment serum. One hundred twelve had preexisting clinical HPV testing with p16 immunohistochemistry and HPV in situ hybridization (87 were dual-positive [HPV-OPC], and 25 were dual-negative [HPV-negative]); 62 had at least 1 posttreatment serum sample. Eighty-six of the 161 tumors were available for additional HPV16 DNA/RNA testing (45 were dual-positive [HPV16-OPC], and 19 were dual-negative [HPV16-negative). HPV16 E6 antibody testing was conducted with multiplex serology. The following were evaluated: 1) the sensitivity and specificity of HPV16 E6 serology for distinguishing HPV-OPC and HPV16-OPC from HPV-negative OPC, 2) HPV16 E6 antibody decay after treatment with linear models accommodating correlations in variance estimates, and 3) pre- and posttreatment HPV16 E6 levels and the risk of recurrence with Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Seventy-eight of 87 HPV-OPCs were HPV16 E6-seropositive (sensitivity, 89.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 81.3%-95.2%), and 24 of 25 HPV-negative OPCs were HPV16 E6-seronegative (specificity, 96.0%; 95% CI, 79.6%-99.9%). Forty-two of 45 HPV16-OPCs were HPV16 E6-seropositive (sensitivity, 93.3%; 95% CI, 81.7%-98.6%), and 18 of 19 HPV16-negative OPCs were HPV16 E6-seronegative (specificity, 94.7%; 95% CI, 74.0%-99.9%). Posttreatment HPV16 E6 antibody levels did not decrease significantly from the baseline (P = .575; median follow-up, 307 days) and were not associated with the risk of recurrence. However, pretreatment HPV16 E6 seropositivity was associated with an 86% reduced risk of local/regional recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.68; P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: HPV16 E6 antibodies may have potential clinical utility for the diagnosis and/or prognosis of HPV-OPC. Cancer 2017;123:4382-90.
BACKGROUND:Human papillomavirus 16 (HPV16) E6 antibodies may be an early marker of the diagnosis and recurrence of humanpapillomavirus-driven oropharyngeal cancer (HPV-OPC). METHODS: This study identified 161 incident oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) cases diagnosed at the University of Pittsburgh (2003-2013) with pretreatment serum. One hundred twelve had preexisting clinical HPV testing with p16 immunohistochemistry and HPV in situ hybridization (87 were dual-positive [HPV-OPC], and 25 were dual-negative [HPV-negative]); 62 had at least 1 posttreatment serum sample. Eighty-six of the 161 tumors were available for additional HPV16 DNA/RNA testing (45 were dual-positive [HPV16-OPC], and 19 were dual-negative [HPV16-negative). HPV16 E6 antibody testing was conducted with multiplex serology. The following were evaluated: 1) the sensitivity and specificity of HPV16 E6 serology for distinguishing HPV-OPC and HPV16-OPC from HPV-negative OPC, 2) HPV16 E6 antibody decay after treatment with linear models accommodating correlations in variance estimates, and 3) pre- and posttreatment HPV16 E6 levels and the risk of recurrence with Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Seventy-eight of 87 HPV-OPCs were HPV16 E6-seropositive (sensitivity, 89.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 81.3%-95.2%), and 24 of 25 HPV-negative OPCs were HPV16 E6-seronegative (specificity, 96.0%; 95% CI, 79.6%-99.9%). Forty-two of 45 HPV16-OPCs were HPV16 E6-seropositive (sensitivity, 93.3%; 95% CI, 81.7%-98.6%), and 18 of 19 HPV16-negative OPCs were HPV16 E6-seronegative (specificity, 94.7%; 95% CI, 74.0%-99.9%). Posttreatment HPV16 E6 antibody levels did not decrease significantly from the baseline (P = .575; median follow-up, 307 days) and were not associated with the risk of recurrence. However, pretreatment HPV16 E6 seropositivity was associated with an 86% reduced risk of local/regional recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.68; P = .015). CONCLUSIONS:HPV16 E6 antibodies may have potential clinical utility for the diagnosis and/or prognosis of HPV-OPC. Cancer 2017;123:4382-90.
Authors: Athanassios Argiris; Dwight E Heron; Ryan P Smith; Seungwon Kim; Michael K Gibson; Stephen Y Lai; Barton F Branstetter; Donna M Posluszny; Lin Wang; Raja R Seethala; Sanja Dacic; William Gooding; Jennifer R Grandis; Jonas T Johnson; Robert L Ferris Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Markus Schmitt; I G Bravo; Peter J F Snijders; Lutz Gissmann; Michael Pawlita; Tim Waterboer Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Anil K Chaturvedi; Eric A Engels; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Brenda Y Hernandez; Weihong Xiao; Esther Kim; Bo Jiang; Marc T Goodman; Maria Sibug-Saber; Wendy Cozen; Lihua Liu; Charles F Lynch; Nicolas Wentzensen; Richard C Jordan; Sean Altekruse; William F Anderson; Philip S Rosenberg; Maura L Gillison Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-10-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Aimée R Kreimer; Mattias Johansson; Elizabeth L Yanik; Hormuzd A Katki; David P Check; Krystle A Lang Kuhs; Martina Willhauck-Fleckenstein; Dana Holzinger; Allan Hildesheim; Ruth Pfeiffer; Craig Williams; Neal D Freedman; Wen-Yi Huang; Mark P Purdue; Angelika Michel; Michael Pawlita; Paul Brennan; Tim Waterboer Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Rossana Verónica Mendoza López; José Eduardo Levi; José Eluf-Neto; Rosalina Jorge Koifman; Sergio Koifman; Maria Paula Curado; Pedro Michaluart-Junior; David Livingstone Alves Figueiredo; Fabiano Pinto Saggioro; Marcos Brasilino de Carvalho; Luiz Paulo Kowalski; Márcio Abrahão; Francisco de Góis-Filho; Eloiza Helena Tajara; Tim Waterboer; Paolo Boffetta; Paul Brennan; Victor Wünsch-Filho Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2014-01-29 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Gypsyamber D'Souza; Gwendolyn Clemens; Tanya Troy; Rachel G Castillo; Linda Struijk; Tim Waterboer; Noemi Bender; Phillip M Pierorazio; Simon R Best; Howard Strickler; Dorothy J Wiley; Robert I Haddad; Marshall Posner; Carole Fakhry Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2019-08-16
Authors: Krystle A Lang Kuhs; C Burton Wood; Jamie Wiggleton; Joseph M Aulino; Brian Latimer; Derek K Smith; Noemi Bender; Sarah Rohde; Kyle Mannion; Young Kim; Robert Sinard; Alexander Langerman; Arthur Fleischer; Carole Fakhry; Tim Waterboer; James L Netterville Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Till Piontek; Christoph Harmel; Michael Pawlita; Katrin Carow; Juliane Schröter; Ingo B Runnebaum; Matthias Dürst; Frederik Graw; Tim Waterboer Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Date: 2019-05-27 Impact factor: 6.237
Authors: Jean-Luc Prétet; Véronique Dalstein; Antoine Touzé; Agnès Beby-Defaux; Patrick Soussan; Élise Jacquin; Philippe Birembaut; Christine Clavel; Christiane Mougin; Alexandra Rousseau; Jean Lacau Saint Guily Journal: Clin Exp Med Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 3.984
Authors: Yasmin Hasan; Larissa Furtado; Ana Tergas; Nita Lee; Rebecca Brooks; Anne McCall; Daniel Golden; Shruti Jolly; Gini Fleming; Matthew Morrow; Kimberly Kraynyak; Albert Sylvester; Fauzia Arif; Matt Levin; David Schwartz; Jean Boyer; Jeffrey Skolnik; Mark Esser; Rakesh Kumar; Mark Bagarazzi; Ralph Weichselbaum; Michael Spiotto Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-03-07 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Srikant Ambatipudi; Ryan Langdon; Rebecca C Richmond; Matthew Suderman; Devin C Koestler; Karl T Kelsey; Nabila Kazmi; Christopher Penfold; Karen M Ho; Wendy McArdle; Susan M Ring; Miranda Pring; Tim Waterboer; Michael Pawlita; Tom R Gaunt; George Davey Smith; Steve Thomas; Andy R Ness; Caroline L Relton Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Virginia E Drake; Carole Fakhry; Melina J Windon; C Matthew Stewart; Lee Akst; Alexander Hillel; Wade Chien; Patrick Ha; Brett Miles; Christine G Gourin; Rajarsi Mandal; Wojciech K Mydlarz; Lisa Rooper; Tanya Troy; Siddhartha Yavvari; Tim Waterboer; Nicole Brenner; David W Eisele; Gypsyamber D'Souza Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-01-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Aimée R Kreimer; Anil K Chaturvedi; Laia Alemany; Devasena Anantharaman; Freddie Bray; Mary Carrington; John Doorbar; Gypsyamber D'Souza; Carole Fakhry; Robert L Ferris; Maura Gillison; D Neil Hayes; Allan Hildesheim; Shao Hui Huang; Luiz P Kowalski; Krystle A Lang Kuhs; James Lewis; Douglas R Lowy; Hisham Mehanna; Andy Ness; Michael Pawlita; Maisa Pinheiro; John Schiller; Meredith S Shiels; Joseph Tota; Lisa Mirabello; Saman Warnakulasuriya; Tim Waterboer; William Westra; Stephen Chanock; Paul Brennan Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 5.337