4.5 Article

High prevalence of discordant human papillomavirus and p16 oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas in an African American cohort

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/hed.24117

Keywords

head and neck neoplasms; oropharyngeal neoplasms; human papillomavirus; healthcare disparities; African Americans

Funding

  1. Eugene Myers Head and Neck Cancer Research Fund
  2. National Cancer Institute [CA138017, CA006927]
  3. Fox Chase Cancer Center Head and Neck Keystone
  4. Department of Defense Cancer Research Program Collaborative Undergraduate Historically Black Colleges and Universities Student Summer Training Award [W81XWH-13-1-0183]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Most studies on human papillomavirus (HPV)associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) have been performed on white Americans. Our study examined the incidence of HPV in an African American oropharyngeal SCC cohort and its survival. Methods. African American patients with oropharyngeal SCC in a combined tumor registry were identified. HPV16 testing was performed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) from DNA extracted from tumor blocks. The p16 staining was performed using standard immunohistochemistry. Results. Forty-four patients were identified for analysis. Seventy-three percent of the tumors were HPV-positive. Only 39% of the patients who were HPV-positive were also p16-positive. Survival between all 3 tumor types, patients who tested HPV-positive/p16, HPV-positive/p16-positive, and HPV-negative/p16-negative was significantly different (p = .03). HPV/p16 status was significant on univariate and multivariate analysis. Conclusion. HPV oropharyngeal SCC is strongly present in this African American cohort. Two thirds of the patients who were HPV-positive were p16-negative. Greater study is needed to explain the high p16 negativity among this HPV-positive oropharyngeal SCC African American cohort. (C) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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