3.8 Article

Prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus and its genotype distribution in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas

期刊

出版社

KOREAN SOC PATHOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4132/jptm.2020.06.22

关键词

Human papillomavirus; Head and neck; Squamous cell carcinoma; Oropharynx

资金

  1. Institute of Clinical Medicine Research of Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital [BCMC19YH12]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: High-risk (HR) human papillomavirus (HPV) is found in a subset of head and neck (HN) squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs). For oropharyngeal SCCs, HR HPV positivity is known to be associated with good prognosis, and a separate staging system for HPVassociated carcinomas using p16 immunohistochemistry (IHC) as a surrogate test has been adopted in the 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system. We examined the HR HPV status and the genotype distribution in five HN subsites. Methods: Formalinfixed paraffin-embedded tissue sections were used for p16 IHC and DNA extraction. HPV DNA detection and genotyping were done employing either a DNA chip-based or real-time polymerase chain reaction-based method. Results: During 2011-2019, a total of 466 SCCs were tested for HPV DNA with 34.1% positivity for HR HPV. Among HN subsites, the oropharynx showed the highest HR HPV prevalence (149/205, 75.1%), followed by the sinonasal tract (3/14, 21.4%), larynx (5/43, 11.6%), hypopharynx (1/38, 2.6%), and oral cavity (1/166, 0.6%). The most common HPV genotype was HPV16 (84.3%) followed by HPV35 (6.9%) and HPV33 (4.4%). Compared with HR HPV status, the sensitivity and specificity of p16 IHC were 98.6% and 94.3% for the oropharynx, and 99.2% and 93.8% for the tonsil, respectively. Conclusions: Using a Korean dataset, we confirmed that HR HPV is most frequently detected in oropharyngeal SCCs. p16 positivity showed a good concordance with HR HPV DNA for oropharyngeal and especially tonsillar carcinomas. The use of p16 IHC may further be extended to predict HR HPV positivity in sinonasal tract SCCs.

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

3.8
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