4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Expression of p16 protein identifies a distinct entity of tonsillar carcinomas associated with human papillomavirus

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
Volume 162, Issue 3, Pages 747-753

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)63871-0

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent analyses of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas revealed frequent infections by oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) type 16 in tonsillar carcinomas. Concerning involvement of risk factors, clinical course of the disease, and prognosis there are strong indications arguing that the HPV-positive tonsillar carcinomas may represent a separate tumor entity. Looking for a surrogate marker, which in further epidemiological studies could replace the laborious and expensive HPV detection and typing we analyzed p16 protein expression in 34 tonsillar carcinoma for correlation to HPV status and load of viral DNA. p16 has been shown to be of diagnostic value for clinical evaluation of cervical dysplasia. We found 53% of the tested tonsillar carcinomas to be HPV-positive. Fifty-six percent of all tumors tested were immunohistochemically positive for the p16 protein. In 16 of 18 of the HPV-positive carcinomas diffuse p16 expression was observed. In contrast, only one of the HPV-negative carcinomas showed focal p16 staining (P < 0.001). As determined by laser-assisted microdissection and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction, p16 expression correlated with the presence of HPV-DNA in the individual tumor specimens. Clinical outcome analysis revealed significant correlation of p16 expression with increased disease-free survival (P = 0.02). These data indicate that p16 is a technically simple immunohistological marker, applicable for routine pathological histology, and its prognostic value for survival is fully equivalent to HPV-DNA detection.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available