BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus 16 (HPV-16) E6 seropositivity is a promising early marker of human papillomavirus-driven oropharyngeal cancer (HPV-OPC), yet more sensitive imaging modalities are needed before screening is considered. The objective of this study was to determine the sensitivity of transcervical sonography (TCS) for detecting clinically apparent HPV-OPC in comparison with computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET)/CT. METHODS: Fifty-one patients with known or suspected HPV-OPC without prior treatment underwent oropharyngeal TCS and blood collection (for HPV multiplex serology testing). Eight standard sonographic images were collected; primary-site tumors were measured in 3 dimensions if identified. Each patient underwent a full diagnostic workup as part of standard clinical care. The pathologic details, HPV status, final staging, and imaging findings were abstracted from the medical record. The sensitivity of each imaging modality was compared with the final clinical diagnosis (the gold standard). RESULTS: Twenty-four base of tongue cancers (47%), 22 tonsillar cancers (43%), and 2 unknown primary cancers (4%) were diagnosed; 3 patients (6%) had no tumors. All p16-tested patients were positive (n = 47). Primary-site tumors were correctly identified in 90.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78.6%-96.7%) with TCS, in 69.4% (95% CI, 54.6%-81.7%) with CT, and in 83.3% (95% CI, 68.6%-93.0%) with PET/CT. TCS identified tumors in 10 of 14 cases missed by CT and recognized the absence of tumors in 3 cases for which CT or PET/CT was falsely positive. The smallest sonographically identified primary-site tumor was 0.5 cm in its greatest dimension; the average size was 2.3 cm. Among p16-positive patients, 76.1% (95% CI, 61.2%-87.4%) were seropositive for HPV-16 E6. CONCLUSIONS: TCS and HPV-16 E6 antibodies are sensitive for the diagnosis of HPV-OPC.
BACKGROUND:Human papillomavirus 16 (HPV-16) E6 seropositivity is a promising early marker of human papillomavirus-driven oropharyngeal cancer (HPV-OPC), yet more sensitive imaging modalities are needed before screening is considered. The objective of this study was to determine the sensitivity of transcervical sonography (TCS) for detecting clinically apparent HPV-OPC in comparison with computed tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET)/CT. METHODS: Fifty-one patients with known or suspected HPV-OPC without prior treatment underwent oropharyngeal TCS and blood collection (for HPV multiplex serology testing). Eight standard sonographic images were collected; primary-site tumors were measured in 3 dimensions if identified. Each patient underwent a full diagnostic workup as part of standard clinical care. The pathologic details, HPV status, final staging, and imaging findings were abstracted from the medical record. The sensitivity of each imaging modality was compared with the final clinical diagnosis (the gold standard). RESULTS: Twenty-four base of tongue cancers (47%), 22 tonsillar cancers (43%), and 2 unknown primary cancers (4%) were diagnosed; 3 patients (6%) had no tumors. All p16-tested patients were positive (n = 47). Primary-site tumors were correctly identified in 90.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78.6%-96.7%) with TCS, in 69.4% (95% CI, 54.6%-81.7%) with CT, and in 83.3% (95% CI, 68.6%-93.0%) with PET/CT. TCS identified tumors in 10 of 14 cases missed by CT and recognized the absence of tumors in 3 cases for which CT or PET/CT was falsely positive. The smallest sonographically identified primary-site tumor was 0.5 cm in its greatest dimension; the average size was 2.3 cm. Among p16-positive patients, 76.1% (95% CI, 61.2%-87.4%) were seropositive for HPV-16 E6. CONCLUSIONS:TCS and HPV-16 E6 antibodies are sensitive for the diagnosis of HPV-OPC.
Authors: Reema Goel; William Moore; Baran Sumer; Saad Khan; David Sher; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Freddy Sitas; Sam Egger; Margaret I Urban; Philip R Taylor; Christian C Abnet; Paolo Boffetta; Dianne L O'Connell; David C Whiteman; Paul Brennan; Reza Malekzadeh; Michael Pawlita; Sanford M Dawsey; Tim Waterboer Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-01-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Elizabeth H Dibble; Ana C Lara Alvarez; Minh-Tam Truong; Gustavo Mercier; Earl F Cook; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-04-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Richard C Jordan; Mark W Lingen; Bayardo Perez-Ordonez; Xin He; Robert Pickard; Michael Koluder; Bo Jiang; Paul Wakely; Weihong Xiao; Maura L Gillison Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: A R Kreimer; A Ferreiro-Iglesias; M Nygard; N Bender; L Schroeder; A Hildesheim; H A Robbins; M Pawlita; H Langseth; N F Schlecht; L F Tinker; I Agalliu; S W Smoller; E Ness-Jensen; K Hveem; G D'Souza; K Visvanathan; B May; G Ursin; E Weiderpass; G G Giles; R L Milne; Q Cai; W J Blot; W Zheng; S J Weinstein; D Albanes; N Brenner; J Hoffman-Bolton; R Kaaks; A Barricarte; A Tjønneland; C Sacerdote; A Trichopoulou; R C H Vermeulen; W-Y Huang; N D Freedman; P Brennan; T Waterboer; M Johansson Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Zhen Dong; Renjian Hu; Yan Du; Li Tan; Lin Li; Juan Du; Longchang Bai; Yingkang Ma; Hongjuan Cui Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 7.561