4.7 Article

Validation of a novel diagnostic standard in HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 108, Issue 6, Pages 1332-1339

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.63

Keywords

HPV; oropharyngeal; SCC; diagnosis; prognosis

Categories

Funding

  1. Wellcome Trust
  2. Faculty of Dental Surgery of the Royal College of Surgeons of England
  3. Liverpool Tissue Bank (LTB)
  4. McGreavy Family

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) is now advocated. Demonstration of transcriptionally active high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) in fresh tumour tissue is considered to be the analytical 'gold standard'. Clinical testing has focused on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue at the expense of sensitivity and specificity. Recently, a novel RNA in situ hybridisation test (RNAscope) has been developed for the detection of HR-HPV in FFPE tissue; however, validation against the 'gold standard' has not been reported. Methods: A tissue microarray comprising FFPE cores from 79 OPSCC was tested using HR-HPV RNAscope. Analytical accuracy and prognostic capacity were established by comparison with the reference test; qRT-PCR for HR-HPV on matched fresh-frozen samples. Results: High-risk HPV RNAscope had a sensitivity and specificity of 97 and 93%, respectively, against the reference test. Kaplan-Meier estimates of disease-specific survival (DSS, P = 0.001) and overall survival (OS, P < 0.001) by RNAscope were similar to the reference test (DSS, P = 0.003, OS, P < 0.001) and at least, not inferior to p16 immunohistochemistry +/- HR-HPV DNA-based tests. Conclusion: HR-HPV RNAscope demonstrates excellent analytical and prognostic performance against the 'gold standard'. These data suggest that the test could be developed to provide the 'clinical standard' for assigning a diagnosis of HPV-related OPSCC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available