4.8 Article

Viral RNA Patterns and High Viral Load Reliably Define Oropharynx Carcinomas with Active HPV16 Involvement

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 72, 期 19, 页码 4993-5003

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-3934

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. European Commission [HPV-AHEAD (FP7-HEALTH-2011-282562)]
  2. BMBG/HGF-Canceropole Grand-Est
  3. German Research Foundation (DFG) [Graduiertenkolleg 793]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCC) that are associated with human papilloma virus (HPV) infection carry a more favorable prognosis than those that are HPV-negative. However, it remains unclear which biomarker(s) can reliably determine which OPSCC specimens are truly driven by HPV infection. In this study, we analyzed 199 fresh-frozen OPSCC specimens for HPV DNA, viral load, RNA expression patterns typical for cervical carcinomas (CxCaRNA(+)), and the HPV-targeted tumor suppressor protein p16(INK4a) as markers for HPV infection. In this set of specimens, there was a 49% prevalence of DNA for the cancer-associated HPV type 16 (HPV+). However, there was only a 16% prevalence of high viral load and only a 20% prevalence of CxCaRNA(+), a marker of HPV16 carcinogenic activity. Among the CxCaRNA(+) tumors, 78% of the specimens exhibited overexpression of p16(INK4a), which also occurred in 14% of the HPV-negative tumors. Using a multivariate survival analysis with HPV negativity as the reference group, CxCaRNA(+) as a single marker conferred the lowest risk of death [HR = 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.13-0.61] from oropharyngeal cancer, closely followed by high viral load (HR = 0.32, 95% CI, 0.14-0.73). In contrast, a weaker inverse association was found for OPSCC that were HPV+ and p16(INK4a) high (HR 0.55, 95% CI, 0.29-1.08). In summary, our findings argued that viral load or RNA pattern analysis is better suited than p16(INK4a) expression to identify HPV16-driven tumors in OPSCC patient populations. Cancer Res; 72(19); 4993-5003. (C)2012 AACR.

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

4.8
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