4.7 Article

Increasing prevalence rates of HPV attributable oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas in the Netherlands as assessed by a validated test algorithm

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 132, 期 7, 页码 1565-1571

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.27821

关键词

HPV; oropharyngeal cancer; squamous cell carcinoma; p16

类别

资金

  1. Dutch Cancer Society [KWF-VU2009-4531]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection has been etiologically linked to oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). The prevalence of HPV-positive OPSCC varies between studies, ranging from 20 to 90%. This may be related to the lack of a standardized HPV detection assay as well as to the time period in which HPV prevalence is investigated, as rising incidence rates are reported over the last decades. Here, we validated our previously defined test algorithm for HPV detection in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor specimen consisting of p16INK4A immunostaining followed by high-risk HPV DNA detection by GP5+/6+ PCR on the positive cases (Smeets et al., Int J Cancer 2007;121:246572). In addition, we analyzed HPV prevalence rates in OPSCCs in the years 19902010. The test algorithm was validated on a consecutive series of 86 OPSCCs collected during 20082011, of which both fresh frozen and FFPE samples were available. We performed HPV-E6 RT-PCR on the frozen samples as gold standard and applied the algorithm to the corresponding FFPE samples. The test algorithm showed an accuracy of 98%. Using the validated algorithm, we determined the presence of an oncogenic HPV infection in 240 OPSCCs of patients diagnosed in the years 19902010 at our center. A significant increase in the proportion of HPV-positive samples was observed, from 5.1% in 1990 to 29.0% in 2010 (p = 0.001). In conclusion, we confirmed the accuracy of the test algorithm for HPV detection in FFPE tumor specimen and we found a significant increase in the prevalence of HPV in OPSCC over the last two decades at our center.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据