Austin K Mattox1, Gypsyamber D'Souza2, Zubair Khan3, Hailey Allen3, Stephanie Henson3, Tanguy Y Seiwert1, Wayne Koch3, Drew M Pardoll4, Carole Fakhry5. 1. Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: gdsouza2@jhu.edu. 3. Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Bloomberg-Kimmel Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; Bloomberg-Kimmel Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: cfakhry@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) causes nearly 80% of oropharynx cancers diagnosed in the United States, with incidence increasing each year. Analysis of cfDNA in plasma and oral rinse has the potential to detect these cases earlier than their typical presentation, but their utility and the best method to detect HPV in plasma and oral rinse samples is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We directly compared next generation sequencing (NGS), droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), and quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) for their ability to detect HPV16 DNA in plasma and oral rinse from 66 patients diagnosed with HPV16-positive oropharyngeal cancer (HPV16-OPC). RESULTS: HPV DNA detection by NGS and ddPCR in plasma samples both had good sensitivity (70%) for HPV16-OPC compared to 20.6% sensitivity by qPCR (p < 0.001). In oral rinse, NGS demonstrated a superior sensitivity of 75.0% as compared to both ddPCR (8.3%, p < 0.001) and qPCR (2.1%, p < 0.001). In a limited cohort of follow up patients, HPV levels detected in plasma by NGS but not ddPCR or qPCR reflected disease remission or progression. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that NGS has the best sensitivity for detecting HPV in both plasma and oral rinse and may play a role in monitoring patients for disease recurrence. Additional studies are needed to define the specificity of NGS for similar patient cohorts.
BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) causes nearly 80% of oropharynx cancers diagnosed in the United States, with incidence increasing each year. Analysis of cfDNA in plasma and oral rinse has the potential to detect these cases earlier than their typical presentation, but their utility and the best method to detect HPV in plasma and oral rinse samples is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We directly compared next generation sequencing (NGS), droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), and quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) for their ability to detect HPV16 DNA in plasma and oral rinse from 66 patients diagnosed with HPV16-positive oropharyngeal cancer (HPV16-OPC). RESULTS: HPV DNA detection by NGS and ddPCR in plasma samples both had good sensitivity (70%) for HPV16-OPC compared to 20.6% sensitivity by qPCR (p < 0.001). In oral rinse, NGS demonstrated a superior sensitivity of 75.0% as compared to both ddPCR (8.3%, p < 0.001) and qPCR (2.1%, p < 0.001). In a limited cohort of follow up patients, HPV levels detected in plasma by NGS but not ddPCR or qPCR reflected disease remission or progression. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that NGS has the best sensitivity for detecting HPV in both plasma and oral rinse and may play a role in monitoring patients for disease recurrence. Additional studies are needed to define the specificity of NGS for similar patient cohorts.
Authors: K Kian Ang; Jonathan Harris; Richard Wheeler; Randal Weber; David I Rosenthal; Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tân; William H Westra; Christine H Chung; Richard C Jordan; Charles Lu; Harold Kim; Rita Axelrod; C Craig Silverman; Kevin P Redmond; Maura L Gillison Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-06-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Agnieszka M Mazurek; Tomasz Rutkowski; Anna Fiszer-Kierzkowska; Ewa Małusecka; Krzysztof Składowski Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Maria B Koenigs; Armida Lefranc-Torres; Juliana Bonilla-Velez; Krupal B Patel; D Neil Hayes; Krzysztof Glomski; Paul M Busse; Annie W Chan; John R Clark; Daniel G Deschler; Kevin S Emerick; Rebecca J Hammon; Lori J Wirth; Derrick T Lin; Edmund A Mroz; William C Faquin; James W Rocco Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Hai-Rim Shin; Freddie Bray; David Forman; Colin Mathers; Donald Maxwell Parkin Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Sagar C Patel; William R Carpenter; Seth Tyree; Marion Everett Couch; Mark Weissler; Trevor Hackman; D Neil Hayes; Carol Shores; Bhishamjit S Chera Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael Hajek; Andrew Sewell; Susan Kaech; Barbara Burtness; Wendell G Yarbrough; Natalia Issaeva Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Andre Isaac; Morris Kostiuk; Han Zhang; Cameron Lindsay; Fawaz Makki; Daniel A O'Connell; Jeffrey R Harris; David W J Cote; Hadi Seikaly; Vincent L Biron Journal: J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2017-01-14
Authors: Sukhkaran S Aulakh; Dustin A Silverman; Kurtis Young; Steven K Dennis; Andrew C Birkeland Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 6.575