4.3 Article

Impact of the HPV-positivity definition on the prognostic value of HPV status in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

Journal

STRAHLENTHERAPIE UND ONKOLOGIE
Volume 189, Issue 10, Pages 856-860

Publisher

URBAN & VOGEL
DOI: 10.1007/s00066-013-0377-3

Keywords

Head-and-neck cancer; Radiotherapy, prognostic factors; HPV status; Treatment outcomes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and purpose. This study re-evaluated the prognostic value of HPV status for loco-regional control (LRC), metastases-free survival (MFS), and survival (OS) in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). A modified definition of HPV positivity was used in the current study compared to the authors' previous study. Patients and methods. In the previous study of the same 170 patients, a tumor was defined as HPV-positive if it showed a positive in situ hybridization result in >= 10% of tumor cells and/or positive p16 immunostaining. In the current analysis, tumors were considered HPV-positive only if they showed positive results for both in situ hybridization and p16 immunostaining. In addition to HPV status, the same 11 potential prognostic factors were investigated for treatment outcomes as in the preceding study. Results. In the multivariate analysis of the current study, HPV positivity was significantly associated with improved LRC [ risk ratio (RR) 9.78; p<0.001], MFS (RR 7.17; p=0.008), and OS (RR 6.61; p<0.001). In the previous study, HPV positivity was associated with LRC (RR 2.34; p=0.014) and OS (RR 2.19; p=0.019), but not with MFS (RR 2.04; p=0.11). Conclusions. Applying the new definition of HPV positivity, the impact of HPV status on the prognosis of patients irradiated for locally advanced SCCHN was more prominent than in our previous study and associated with all three investigated endpoints.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available