4.7 Article

p16, HPV, and Cetuximab: What Is the Evidence?

期刊

ONCOLOGIST
卷 22, 期 7, 页码 811-822

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0433

关键词

Cetuximab; p16; Human papillomavirus; Squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck; IMCL-9815; EXTREME

类别

资金

  1. Merck KGaA
  2. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  3. Eli Lilly Co
  4. Darmstadt, Germany
  5. Ina Nikolaeva, PhD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) is the sixth most common cancer worldwide. It has recently been appreciated that human papillomavirus (HPV) status (or p16 status, which is a frequently used surrogate for HPV status) is prognostic for oropharyngeal SCCHN. Here, we review and contextualize existing p16 and HPV data, focusing on the cetuximab registration trials in previously untreated, locoregionally advanced, nonmetastatic SCCHN (LA SCCHN) and in recurrent and/or metastatic SCCHN (R/M SCCHN): the IMCL-9815 and EXTREME clinical trials, respectively. Taken together, the available data suggest that, while p16 and HPV are prognostic biomarkers in patients with LA SCCHN and R/M SCCHN, it could not be shown that they are predictive for the outcomes of the described cetuximab-containing trial regimens. Consequently, although HPV status provides prognostic information, it is not shown to predict therapy response, and so is not helpful for assigning first-line therapy in patients with SCCHN. In addition, we discuss assays currently used to assess p16 and HPV status, as well as the differentiation between these two biomarkers. Ultimately, we believe HPV E6/E7 polymerase chain reaction-based mRNA testing may represent the most informative technique for assessing HPV status in patients with SCCHN. While p16 is a valid surrogate for HPV status in oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC), there is a higher risk of discordance between p16 and HPVstatus in non-OPC SCCHN. Collectively, these discussions hold key implications for the clinical management of SCCHN.

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