4.6 Article

Human papillomavirus infection and oral cancer:: A case-control study in Montreal, Canada

期刊

ORAL ONCOLOGY
卷 44, 期 3, 页码 242-250

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2007.02.005

关键词

human papillomavirus; serology; oral neoplasms; oral cancer; tonsillar cancers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of the present study was to examine the association between human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and risk of developing oral cancer. The investigation followed a hospital-based case-control design. Cases consisted of newly diagnosed patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity and oropharynx. Controls were frequency matched to cases on gender, age, and hospital. Subjects were interviewed to elicit information on putative risk factors. Oral exfoliated cells were tested for detection of HPV DNA by the PGMY09/11 polymerase chain reaction protocol. Serum antibodies against HPV 16, 18, and 31 viral capsids were detected using an immunoassay technique. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of oral cancer according to HPV exposure variables. HPV DNA was detected in 19% of cases (14 out of 72), and 5% of controls (six out of 129). Among tonsit-related cancers (palatine tonsil and base of tongue) viral DNA was detected in 43% of cases (nine out of 21). The OR for tonsil-related cancers for high-risk HPV types was 19.32 (95%CI: 2.3-159.5), after adjustment for socio-demographic characteristics, tobacco, and alcohol consumption. The equivalent OR for HPV 16 seropositivity was 31.51 (95%CI: 4.5-219.7). The ORS of non-tonsillar oral cancers for high risk HPV DNA in oral cells and for seropositivity were 2.14 (95%CI: 0.4-13.0) and 3.16 (95%CI: 0.8-13.0), respectively. These results provide evidence supporting a strong causal association between HPV infection and tonsil-related cancers. The evidence for an etiologic link is less clear for non-tonsillar oral cancers. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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