Cargando…
Recommendations for determining HPV status in patients with oropharyngeal cancers under TNM8 guidelines: a two-tier approach
BACKGROUND: TNM8 staging for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCC) surrogates p16 immunohistochemistry for HPV testing. Patients with p16+ OPSCC may lack HPV aetiology. Here, we evaluate the suitability of TNM8 staging for guiding prognosis in such patients. METHODS: HPV status was ascertai...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6474272/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30890775 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-019-0414-9 |
_version_ | 1783412607149932544 |
---|---|
author | Craig, Stephanie G. Anderson, Lesley A. Schache, Andrew G. Moran, Michael Graham, Laura Currie, Keith Rooney, Keith Robinson, Max Upile, Navdeep S. Brooker, Rachel Mesri, Mina Bingham, Victoria McQuaid, Stephen Jones, Terry McCance, Dennis J. Salto-Tellez, Manuel McDade, Simon S. James, Jacqueline A. |
author_facet | Craig, Stephanie G. Anderson, Lesley A. Schache, Andrew G. Moran, Michael Graham, Laura Currie, Keith Rooney, Keith Robinson, Max Upile, Navdeep S. Brooker, Rachel Mesri, Mina Bingham, Victoria McQuaid, Stephen Jones, Terry McCance, Dennis J. Salto-Tellez, Manuel McDade, Simon S. James, Jacqueline A. |
author_sort | Craig, Stephanie G. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: TNM8 staging for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCC) surrogates p16 immunohistochemistry for HPV testing. Patients with p16+ OPSCC may lack HPV aetiology. Here, we evaluate the suitability of TNM8 staging for guiding prognosis in such patients. METHODS: HPV status was ascertained using p16 immunohistochemistry and high-risk HPV RNA and DNA in situ hybridisation. Survival by stage in a cohort of OPSCC patients was evaluated using TNM7/TNM8 staging. Survival of p16+/HPV− patients was compared to p16 status. RESULTS: TNM8 staging was found to improve on TNM7 (log rank p = 0·0190 for TNM8 compared with p = 0·0530 for TNM7) in p16+ patients. Patients who tested p16+ but were HPV− (n = 20) had significantly reduced five-year survival (33%) compared to p16+ patients (77%) but not p16− patients (35%). Cancer stage was reduced in 95% of p16+/HPV− patients despite having a mortality rate twice (HR 2.66 [95% CI: 1.37–5.15]) that of p16+/HPV+ patients under new TNM8 staging criteria. CONCLUSION: Given the significantly poorer survival of p16+/HPV− OPSCCs, these data provide compelling evidence for use of an HPV-specific test for staging classification. This has particular relevance in light of potential treatment de-escalation that could expose these patients to inappropriately reduced treatment intensity as treatment algorithms evolve. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6474272 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64742722019-09-11 Recommendations for determining HPV status in patients with oropharyngeal cancers under TNM8 guidelines: a two-tier approach Craig, Stephanie G. Anderson, Lesley A. Schache, Andrew G. Moran, Michael Graham, Laura Currie, Keith Rooney, Keith Robinson, Max Upile, Navdeep S. Brooker, Rachel Mesri, Mina Bingham, Victoria McQuaid, Stephen Jones, Terry McCance, Dennis J. Salto-Tellez, Manuel McDade, Simon S. James, Jacqueline A. Br J Cancer Article BACKGROUND: TNM8 staging for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCC) surrogates p16 immunohistochemistry for HPV testing. Patients with p16+ OPSCC may lack HPV aetiology. Here, we evaluate the suitability of TNM8 staging for guiding prognosis in such patients. METHODS: HPV status was ascertained using p16 immunohistochemistry and high-risk HPV RNA and DNA in situ hybridisation. Survival by stage in a cohort of OPSCC patients was evaluated using TNM7/TNM8 staging. Survival of p16+/HPV− patients was compared to p16 status. RESULTS: TNM8 staging was found to improve on TNM7 (log rank p = 0·0190 for TNM8 compared with p = 0·0530 for TNM7) in p16+ patients. Patients who tested p16+ but were HPV− (n = 20) had significantly reduced five-year survival (33%) compared to p16+ patients (77%) but not p16− patients (35%). Cancer stage was reduced in 95% of p16+/HPV− patients despite having a mortality rate twice (HR 2.66 [95% CI: 1.37–5.15]) that of p16+/HPV+ patients under new TNM8 staging criteria. CONCLUSION: Given the significantly poorer survival of p16+/HPV− OPSCCs, these data provide compelling evidence for use of an HPV-specific test for staging classification. This has particular relevance in light of potential treatment de-escalation that could expose these patients to inappropriately reduced treatment intensity as treatment algorithms evolve. Nature Publishing Group UK 2019-03-20 2019-04-16 /pmc/articles/PMC6474272/ /pubmed/30890775 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-019-0414-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Craig, Stephanie G. Anderson, Lesley A. Schache, Andrew G. Moran, Michael Graham, Laura Currie, Keith Rooney, Keith Robinson, Max Upile, Navdeep S. Brooker, Rachel Mesri, Mina Bingham, Victoria McQuaid, Stephen Jones, Terry McCance, Dennis J. Salto-Tellez, Manuel McDade, Simon S. James, Jacqueline A. Recommendations for determining HPV status in patients with oropharyngeal cancers under TNM8 guidelines: a two-tier approach |
title | Recommendations for determining HPV status in patients with oropharyngeal cancers under TNM8 guidelines: a two-tier approach |
title_full | Recommendations for determining HPV status in patients with oropharyngeal cancers under TNM8 guidelines: a two-tier approach |
title_fullStr | Recommendations for determining HPV status in patients with oropharyngeal cancers under TNM8 guidelines: a two-tier approach |
title_full_unstemmed | Recommendations for determining HPV status in patients with oropharyngeal cancers under TNM8 guidelines: a two-tier approach |
title_short | Recommendations for determining HPV status in patients with oropharyngeal cancers under TNM8 guidelines: a two-tier approach |
title_sort | recommendations for determining hpv status in patients with oropharyngeal cancers under tnm8 guidelines: a two-tier approach |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6474272/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30890775 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41416-019-0414-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT craigstephanieg recommendationsfordetermininghpvstatusinpatientswithoropharyngealcancersundertnm8guidelinesatwotierapproach AT andersonlesleya recommendationsfordetermininghpvstatusinpatientswithoropharyngealcancersundertnm8guidelinesatwotierapproach AT schacheandrewg recommendationsfordetermininghpvstatusinpatientswithoropharyngealcancersundertnm8guidelinesatwotierapproach AT moranmichael recommendationsfordetermininghpvstatusinpatientswithoropharyngealcancersundertnm8guidelinesatwotierapproach AT grahamlaura recommendationsfordetermininghpvstatusinpatientswithoropharyngealcancersundertnm8guidelinesatwotierapproach AT curriekeith recommendationsfordetermininghpvstatusinpatientswithoropharyngealcancersundertnm8guidelinesatwotierapproach AT rooneykeith recommendationsfordetermininghpvstatusinpatientswithoropharyngealcancersundertnm8guidelinesatwotierapproach AT robinsonmax recommendationsfordetermininghpvstatusinpatientswithoropharyngealcancersundertnm8guidelinesatwotierapproach AT upilenavdeeps recommendationsfordetermininghpvstatusinpatientswithoropharyngealcancersundertnm8guidelinesatwotierapproach AT brookerrachel recommendationsfordetermininghpvstatusinpatientswithoropharyngealcancersundertnm8guidelinesatwotierapproach AT mesrimina recommendationsfordetermininghpvstatusinpatientswithoropharyngealcancersundertnm8guidelinesatwotierapproach AT binghamvictoria recommendationsfordetermininghpvstatusinpatientswithoropharyngealcancersundertnm8guidelinesatwotierapproach AT mcquaidstephen recommendationsfordetermininghpvstatusinpatientswithoropharyngealcancersundertnm8guidelinesatwotierapproach AT jonesterry recommendationsfordetermininghpvstatusinpatientswithoropharyngealcancersundertnm8guidelinesatwotierapproach AT mccancedennisj recommendationsfordetermininghpvstatusinpatientswithoropharyngealcancersundertnm8guidelinesatwotierapproach AT saltotellezmanuel recommendationsfordetermininghpvstatusinpatientswithoropharyngealcancersundertnm8guidelinesatwotierapproach AT mcdadesimons recommendationsfordetermininghpvstatusinpatientswithoropharyngealcancersundertnm8guidelinesatwotierapproach AT jamesjacquelinea recommendationsfordetermininghpvstatusinpatientswithoropharyngealcancersundertnm8guidelinesatwotierapproach |