4.5 Article

Prognostic impact of additional HPV diagnostics in 102 patients with p16-stratified advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma

Journal

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY
Volume 278, Issue 6, Pages 1983-2000

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-020-06262-7

Keywords

Oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma; Oropharyngeal cancer; p16; Human papillomavirus (HPV); Prognosis; Head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that p16 and HPV status may not be equivalent markers for a better prognosis, and may not significantly affect the survival rate of patients. Differences were observed in survival rates between smokers and non-smokers during treatment.
Purpose p16 overexpression was considered as surrogate marker to identify human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCCs). Methods 102 patients with advanced stage OPSCCs treated primarily by transoral lasermicrosurgery were included. Prognostic associations of p16- and HPV-status were analyzed separately and combined. Results In contrast to p16, the HPV-status resulted in no significant survival discrepancies (5-year overall survival (OS) HPV-positive 64.9%, HPV-negative 78.7%). Combining both markers, p16-positive (p16-positive/HPV-positive, p16-positive/HPV-negative) and p16-negative/HPV-negative groups demonstrated comparable high survival (OS 78.1% vs. 85.6% vs. 73.6%). Lowest survival was observed for patients with p16-negative/HPV-positive OPSCCs (OS 40.8%). Never smoking patients with p16-positive OPSCCs demonstrated the highest survival, whereas within former/current smokers with p16-positive and p16-negative disease it was comparable low (OS 90.0% vs. 63.0% vs. 57.4%). Conclusions p16- and HPV-status should not be considered as equivalent markers for a better prognosis. Furthermore, they should not generally predominate patient associated factors like smoking.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available