Abstract
p16 overexpression is often used as a surrogate marker for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma but remains an uncertain diagnostic tool for HPV-related sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma (SNSCC). Our study involved 79 consecutive SNSCC patients who were treated at a tertiary referral university hospital during 2006–2021. We retrospectively examined their clinical characteristics and conducted p16 immunohistochemistry and HPV detection. We found that 12.7% of the patients exhibited p16 overexpression, which was significantly more common in the nasal cavity and increased from 2015 onward. The HPV was a high-risk type and viral loads ranged from 4.2 to 1.6 × 106 copies/ng DNA with genome integration. Five-year overall survival (OS) and five-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rates were 74.6% and 69.9%, respectively. Our multivariate analysis showed that T category (T1–4a) and hemoglobin levels (≥13.7) were significant favorable prognostic factors for OS, while T category, performance status, and p16 overexpression were significantly associated with RFS. In patients with p16 overexpression, OS was 100% and RFS was 90%. Our findings suggest that p16 overexpression is a reliable surrogate marker for transcriptionally active HPV infection and predicts a favorable prognosis.
Keywords: sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma, human papillomavirus infection, p16 overexpression, nasal cavity, increasing trend, disease prognosis
1. Introduction
Sinonasal malignancies, although infrequent, account for about 3–5% of all head and neck cancers [1]. From 2004 to 2008, the annual incidence rate for sinonasal cancer was between 5 and 10 cases per million in males and 2 and 5 cases per million in females [2]. Sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma (SNSCC) is the predominant histological subtype, comprising 35–60% of all cases [3]. Notably, the incidence of sinonasal cancer exhibits marked regional variations, with the incidence of sinonasal malignancies appearing to be relatively high in the Asia–Pacific region compared with Europe and North America [2]. Radical surgery is the first choice of treatment, but alternative treatment approaches have been sought because of challenges such as aesthetic considerations, ethnic diversity, and the difficulty of securing clear surgical margins.
High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types are well-established culprits in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) [4]. In recent years, these high-risk HPV strains have been posited as potential drivers of SNSCC onset [3,5,6,7,8]. According to recent meta-analyses, the HPV prevalence in SNSCC cases is around 25.5% [5]. Moreover, HPV status seems to have a tangible correlation with survival outcomes, exhibiting modest heterogeneity across studies [8]. p16-positive malignant tumors in the larynx as well as OPSCC demonstrated an improved survival outcome after treatment [9]. Nevertheless, there is a wide range of reported HPV infection rates in SNSCC, owing to methodological differences and the limited samples in each study. Notably, the geographic variability in HPV prevalence seen in SNSCC mirrors the patterns seen in OPSCC [6], adding complexity in pinning down a direct association between high-risk HPV strains and SNSCC. In the diagnostic realm, p16 immunohistochemistry is favored for its cost-effectiveness and broad applicability, making it the go-to method for identifying transcriptionally active HPV infection in OPSCC [10]. However, p16 immunoreactivity is not a consistent marker for transcriptionally active high-risk HPV infection in sinonasal samples [11].
This study investigated in detail the diagnostic precision of p16 immunohistochemistry for detecting HPV DNA. Additionally, we aimed to shed light on the clinical features and survival outcomes associated with HPV-related SNSCC.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
In this retrospective observational study, we reviewed the clinical records of patients diagnosed with SNSCC (both keratinizing and nonkeratinizing SCC according to the update in the 5th edition of the WHO classification [12]) between August 2006 and November 2021 at a single tertiary referral university hospital (Ryukyu University Hospital). From this pool, 79 consecutive patients with SNSCC who underwent surgery or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with curative intent were selected. We meticulously excluded patients with non-SCC tumor histology. Furthermore, we also excluded patients receiving palliative care due to distant metastasis or general complications and those who opted for the best supportive care (Figure 1). SNSCC consisted of 59% of all sinonasal malignant tumors.
Figure 1.
Selection of study participants. FFPE, formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sample; n, number; SN, sinonasal.
All participants provided written informed consent before the collection and analysis of tumor samples. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of the Ryukyus (project ID: 156) and complied with the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki, as revised in 2008.
2.2. Clinical Evaluation
A multidisciplinary team, consisting of head and neck surgeons, radiation oncologists, and reconstructive surgeons, participated in pre-treatment evaluation and decision-making. This evaluation entailed an exhaustive review of the patient’s medical history, physical examination, performance status assessment, serum chemistry profiles, complete blood cell count, chest X-ray, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Positron emission tomography combined with CT was performed to identify lymph nodes or distant metastases.
Data on clinical parameters and oncological outcomes were recorded up to the end of the follow-up period on 31 July 2023. We determined clinical and pathological tumor staging in line with the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) TNM Classification (eighth edition, 2017) [13].
Several parameters for nutritional status and general condition were assessed before treatment, including hemoglobin (Hb), albumin (Alb), neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR) [14], C-reactive protein (CRP), geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) [15], modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS) [16], prognostic nutritional index (PNI) [17] and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) [18,19]. PNI is derived from serum Alb levels and lymphocyte count [20], while NLR is the ratio of absolute neutrophil count to absolute lymphocyte count. These universally employed indices gauge inflammatory and nutritional status in cancer patients.
After primary treatment, we regularly checked for locoregional recurrence and distant metastasis through physical examinations, CT and/or MRI, and head and neck endoscopic examinations.
2.3. Surgical Treatment
Patients requiring total maxillectomy underwent combined neck dissection with reconstructive surgery in addition to removal of the primary lesion. Endoscopic sinus surgery was chosen for limited primary lesions where assured surgical margins were anticipated. Typically, postoperative radiation therapy (60 Gy), supplemented with platinum infusion (100 mg/m2, two or three times triweekly), was applied to the primary site and/or neck within 6 weeks postoperatively for cases with close/positive surgical margins or extracapsular lymph node extension. In patients with renal issues and those aged over 75 years, radiation therapy was prioritized as the postoperative adjuvant treatment instead of CRT.
2.4. CRT Protocol
This protocol, which has been described previously [21], is summarized here. The irradiation focus encompassed the maxilla, ethmoid sinus, nasal cavity, and pterygopalatine fossa, delivering 70 Gy across 35 sessions over 7 weeks. Along with the primary lesion, metastatic neck lesions were also treated. At the start of intensity-modulated radiotherapy, intra-arterial chemotherapy was introduced via a femoral route. Both docetaxel (60 mg/m2) and nedaplatin (80 mg/m2) were administered to the target lesions through the deployed microcatheters two or three times every 4 weeks.
2.5. p16 Immunohistochemistry
We assessed p16 expression using the CINtec® p16 histology kit (Roche Applied Science, Penzberg, Germany) [11]. The threshold for p16 overexpression (both cytoplasmic and nuclear expression) was set as diffuse (≥75%) tumor expression with a minimum of moderate (+2/3) staining intensity, consistent with the 8th edition of the AJCC classification for OPSCC [13,22]. p16 immunoreactivity was classified according to the percentage of p16-positive cells out of all tumor cells and the intensity of p16 immunoreactivity (none, weak, moderate, or strong) (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
Representative cases in p16 immunohistochemistry. p16 immunoreactivity was classified according to positive cell percentage and staining intensity of the tumor nucleus and cytosol ((A), none; (B), weak; (C), moderate; (D), strong). p16 overexpression was defined as having more than 75% of tumor cells positive with moderate to strong staining as in the representative cases.
2.6. HPV DNA Detection
Cases showing p16 overexpression underwent further testing by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis and HPV DNA in situ hybridization. For PCR, DNA extracted from fresh frozen tumor samples was processed using the MY09/MY11 and GP5+/GP6+ degenerate consensus primer sets targeting the L1 region, as documented in previous studies [22]. The full experimental conditions are available in Supplementary Materials (Table S1).
We also introduced a novel quantitative real-time PCR assay system targeting the E6 and E2 genes of HPV strains 16, 18, 33, and 52. The assay system was designed to quantify the viral load and discern the viral integration status [11] (Table S2). For in situ hybridization analysis of high-risk HPV DNA, we employed the GenPoint HPV Biotinylated DNA Probe (Dako; Agilent Technologies, Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA). This probe can identify an array of HPV types in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sections to confirm the presence of HPV DNA in SNSCC [11]. Details of the experimental conditions are presented in the Supplementary Materials.
In this research, HPV-related SNSCC was defined as cases exhibiting both p16 overexpression and the presence of HPV DNA as determined by PCR or in situ hybridization [11].
2.7. Statistical Analysis
Categorical data were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-squared test, and continuous data were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test. For comparisons with small sample sizes, Fisher’s exact test was used. Survival curves were plotted by the Kaplan–Meier method, and survival distributions were compared by the log-rank test. We used a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model to analyze prognostic factors and treatments influencing overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). Events were defined as death due to any cause for OS and as recurrence at the primary site, neck lymph node recurrence, or distant metastasis for RFS.
A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant, and all analyses were performed using JMP Pro 15.0.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).
3. Results
3.1. Patient Demographics, Clinical Testing and Treatment Profiles
The clinical characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 1. In our study cohort of seventy-nine participants, there were seventy men and nine women, with a median age of sixty-one (range: 30–90) years. Tumor locations were distributed as follows: maxillary sinus (sixty-three patients, 79.7%), ethmoid sinus (ten patients, 12.7%), and nasal cavity (six patients, 7.6%). The histologic classification was keratinizing squamous cell carcinoma in 75 patients (93.6%). There were no significant differences in tobacco and alcohol consumption, performance status, and histological differentiation between HPV-related and HPV-unrelated tumors. A notable finding was that p16 overexpression was significantly more prevalent in the nasal cavity (50.0%) than in the maxillary or ethmoid sinus (9.6%, p = 0.004, chi-squared test). A temporal trend was observed, with p16 overexpression becoming more common in patients treated after 2015 (p = 0.037, Fisher’s exact test).
Table 1.
Clinical profiles in sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma patients.
| Variables | Total SNSCC (n = 79) | HPV-Related Tumor (n = 10) |
HPV-Unrelated Tumor (n = 69) | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 70 | 7 | 63 | 0.048 |
| Female | 9 | 3 | 6 | |
| Median age | 0.525 | |||
| ≤61 | 39 | 4 | 35 | |
| >61 | 40 | 6 | 34 | |
| Smoking history | ||||
| Yes | 64 | 6 | 58 | 0.070 |
| No | 15 | 4 | 11 | |
| Alcohol consumption | ||||
| Yes | 67 | 8 | 59 | 0.650 |
| No | 12 | 2 | 10 | |
| ECOG PS | ||||
| 0 | 33 | 4 | 29 | 0.903 |
| 1, 2, 3 | 46 | 6 | 40 | |
| Primary subsite | ||||
| Maxillary sinus | 63 | 6 | 57 | |
| Ethmoid sinus | 10 | 1 | 9 | |
| Nasal cavity | 6 | 3 | 3 | |
| Maxillary and ethmoid sinus | 73 | 6 | 66 | 0.004 |
| Nasal cavity | 6 | 3 | 3 | |
| Clinical T category | ||||
| T1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
| T2 | 8 | 2 | 6 | |
| T3 | 22 | 4 | 18 | |
| T4a | 31 | 1 | 30 | |
| T4b | 15 | 2 | 13 | |
| T1, T2, T3, T4a | 64 | 8 | 56 | 0.930 |
| T4b | 15 | 2 | 13 | |
| Clinical N category | ||||
| N0 | 52 | 6 | 46 | |
| N1 | 11 | 2 | 9 | |
| N2 | 15 | 2 | 13 | |
| N3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| N0 | 52 | 6 | 46 | 0.678 |
| N1–3 | 27 | 4 | 23 | |
| Clinical UICC stage | ||||
| I | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
| II | 9 | 2 | 7 | |
| III | 13 | 2 | 11 | |
| IVA, IVB | 54 | 5 | 49 | |
| I, II, III | 23 | 5 | 18 | 0.120 |
| IV | 56 | 5 | 51 | |
| Histology | ||||
| Keratinizing | 75 | 8 | 67 | * 0.076 |
| Non-keratinizing | 4 | 2 | 2 | |
| Treatment | 0.822 | |||
| CRT/RT | 61 | 8 | 53 | |
| Surgery ± RT/CRT | 18 | 2 | 16 | |
| First medical examination | * 0.037 | |||
| Before 2015 | 35 | 1 | 34 | |
| 2015 or later | 44 | 9 | 35 | |
| Prognosis | ||||
| Alive without disease | 58 | 10 | 48 | |
| Died of disease | 19 | 0 | 19 | |
| Died of other cause | 2 | 0 | 2 |
CRT, chemoradiotherapy; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status; RT, radiation therapy; SNSCC, sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma; UICC, 8th edition of the Union for International Cancer Control; * Fisher’s exact test; other categorical data were analyzed by chi-squared tests.
Most patients were diagnosed with T4 (58.2%) and stage IV disease (68.4%). Treatment modalities included radiation-based treatment (RT/CRT) in 61 patients (77.2%), with the remaining 18 patients (22.8%) undergoing radical surgery followed by adjuvant RT/CRT-based treatment according to the pathological findings. Laboratory and nutritional variables did not show significant differences between the two tumor types (Table 2). There was no significant difference in inflammatory and nutritional status between HPV-related and HPV-unrelated tumors (Table 2).
Table 2.
Laboratory and nutritional variables in SNSCC.
| Variables | Total SNSCC (n = 79) |
HPV-Related Tumor (n = 10) |
HPV-Unrelated Tumor (n = 69) |
p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hb (g/dL) | ||||
| Median | 13.7 | |||
| <13.7 | 41 | 6 | 35 | 0.583 |
| ≥13.7 | 38 | 4 | 34 | |
| NLR (%) | ||||
| Median | 3.19 | |||
| <3.2 | 40 | 5 | 35 | 0.966 |
| ≥3.2 | 39 | 5 | 34 | |
| Alb (g/dL) | ||||
| Median | 3.9 | |||
| <3.9 | 37 | 4 | 33 | 0.643 |
| ≥3.9 | 42 | 6 | 36 | |
| CRP (mg/dL) | ||||
| Median | 1.2 | |||
| ≤0.78 | 37 | 6 | 31 | 0.372 |
| ≥0.78 | 42 | 4 | 38 | |
| GNRI | ||||
| <98 | 31 | 3 | 28 | 0.522 |
| ≥98 | 48 | 7 | 41 | |
| mGPS | ||||
| A, B, C | 60 | 6 | 54 | 0.207 |
| D | 19 | 4 | 15 | |
| PNI | ||||
| <40 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 0.268 |
| ≥40 | 71 | 8 | 63 |
Alb, albumin; CRP, C-reactive protein; GNRI, geriatric nutritional risk index; Hb, hemoglobin; mGPS, modified Glasgow prognostic score, NLR, neutrophil–lymphocyte rate; PNI, prognostic nutritional index; SNSCC, sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma.
3.2. p16 Overexpression and HPV DNA Detection
Of the 79 patients with SNSCC, 10 (12.7%) exhibited p16 overexpression. Figure 2 shows representative examples of p16 immunoreactivity. Table 3 shows the distribution of p16 immunoreactivity according to positive cell percentage and intensity. Some immunoreactivity to p16 was observed in 45.5% of the SNSCC cases, but these p16-positive cases usually had weak to moderate intensity and less than 50% positive cells (Table 3).
Table 3.
Distribution of p16 immunoreactivity.
| Intensity Score | None | Weak | Moderate | Strong | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % of positive cells | 0 | 43 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 43 |
| 1–20 | 0 | 12 | 6 | 0 | 18 | |
| 20–50 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 8 | |
| 50–75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| ≥75 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 10 | |
| Total | 43 | 15 | 16 | 5 | 79 |
Every p16-overexpressing sample tested positive for high-risk HPV DNA. The distribution of HPV types included HPV-16, HPV-18, HPV-33, and HPV-52, with some unidentified types. Viral loads across samples ranged from 4.2 to 1.63 × 106 copies/ng genomic DNA, with each case displaying viral integration into the host genome (Table 4). Figure 3 shows representative images of p16 overexpression and HPV DNA in situ hybridization.
Table 4.
HPV analysis in p16 overexpression cases.
| Case | Sex | Age | First Visit (Year) | Primary Site | HPV Type | Viral Load (Copies/ng DNA) |
E2/E6 | ISH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M | 64 | 2014 | Nasal cavity | HPV-52 | 61,694.74 | 0.747 | Positive |
| 2 | M | 61 | 2015 | MS | NA | NA | NA | Positive |
| 3 | M | 66 | 2016 | MS | NA | NA | NA | Positive |
| 4 | F | 46 | 2016 | ES | HPV-18 | 2627.9 | 0 | Positive |
| 5 | M | 65 | 2018 | Nasal cavity | HPV-16 | 141.6 | 0.0511 | Positive |
| 6 | F | 63 | 2019 | MS | NA | NA | NA | Positive |
| 7 | F | 53 | 2019 | Nasal cavity | HPV-33 | 1.63 × 106 | 0.8307 | Positive |
| 8 | M | 80 | 2020 | MS | NA | NA | NA | Positive |
| 9 | M | 46 | 2021 | MS | HPV-16 | 4.3 | 0 | Positive |
| 10 | M | 64 | 2021 | MS | HPV-16 | 4.2 | 0 | Positive |
ES, ethmoid sinus; F, female; ISH, in situ hybridization; M, male; MS, maxillary sinus; NA, not available.
Figure 3.
Representative findings for p16 overexpression in sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma. (A): hematoxylin–eosin staining. Bar = 50 µm. (B): p16 immunohistochemistry. Bar = 50 µm. (C): HPV DNA in situ hybridization. Bar = 50 µm. More than 75% of tumor cells expressed p16 immunoreactivity with moderate intensity and had a positive reaction in HPV DNA in situ hybridization.
3.3. Prognostic Evaluation of Clinical Characteristics
Over a median follow-up duration of 60 months, the 5-year OS rate for the entire cohort was 74.6%. Univariate analysis identified T4b lesions and Hb levels below 13.7 g/dL as significant factors for poorer OS (p = 0.011 and p = 0.012, respectively). Although the 5-year OS rate for the p16-overexpression group was 100% (compared with 71.2% for the p16-negative group), this difference failed to achieve statistical significance by the log-rank test (p = 0.072, Figure 4).
Figure 4.
Kaplan–Meier cumulative survival plots for OS according to T category (A), Hb level (B), and p16 overexpression status (C). The 5-year OS tended to be better in the p16-positive group (100%) than in the p16-negative group (71.2%) (p = 0.072). Hb, hemoglobin; OS, overall survival.
In multivariate analysis considering the T category, Hb levels, and CRP, the significant prognostic factors for OS were T1–4a (p = 0.019) and Hb levels ≥ 13.7 g/dL (p = 0.035). Since all patients with p16 overexpression were alive, the multivariate analysis did not provide a hazard rate.
The 5-year RFS rate was 69.9%. In univariate analysis, the T category, ECOG PS, Hb levels, Alb levels, and mGPS displayed significant prognostic implications, as shown in Figure 5 and Table 5.
Figure 5.
Kaplan–Meier cumulative survival plots for RFS according to the T category (A), ECOG PS (B), p16 overexpression (C), and mGPS (D). The five-year RFS rate was 69.9%. RFS in the p16-overexpression group was 90%, compared with 66.9% in the p16-negative group. However, the difference in RFS according to p16 overexpression was not significant in the univariate analysis (p = 0.142) but was significant in the multivariate analysis (p = 0.012). mGPS, modified Glasgow prognostic score; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status; RFS, relapse-free survival.
Table 5.
Univariate and multivariate analyses for OS and RFS.
| OS | RFS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate Analysis |
Multivariate Analysis |
Univariate Analysis |
Multivariate Analysis |
|||
| Factor (Category) | p-Value | p-Value | HR (95% CI) | p-Value | p-Value | HR (95% CI) |
| Sex (male vs. female) | 0.335 | 0.547 | ||||
| Age (≤61 vs. ≥62 years) | 0.848 | 0.702 | ||||
| Tobacco history (yes vs. no) |
0.529 | 0.333 | ||||
| Alcohol consumption (yes vs. no) |
0.479 | 0.663 | ||||
| ECOG PS (0 vs. 1, 2, 3) | 0.273 | 0.049 | 0.026 | 0.364 (0.140–0.945) |
||
| Primary subsite (nasal cavity vs. other) |
0.652 | 0.516 | ||||
| Histology (keratinizing vs. non-keratinizing) |
0.921 | 0.815 | ||||
| p16 overexpression or not |
0.072 | 0.004 | NA | 0.142 | 0.012 | 0.137 (0.018–1.073) |
| T category (T1, T2, T3, T4a vs. T4b) |
0.011 | 0.019 | 3.365 (1.312–8.630) |
0.001 | 0.004 | 4.016 (1.68–9.61) |
| N category (N0 vs. N, 1, 2, 3) |
0.736 | 0.862 | ||||
| UICC clinical stage (I, II, III vs. IV) |
0.067 | 0.087 | ||||
| Hb (<13.7 vs. ≥13.7 g/dL) | 0.012 | 0.035 | 3.129 (1.016–9.6370) |
0.008 | 0.074 | 2.458 (0.891–6.777) |
| NLR (≤3.2% vs. ≥3.2%) | 0.101 | 0.069 | ||||
| Alb (<3.9 vs. ≥3.9 g/dL) | 0.104 | 0.020 | ||||
| CRP (≥0.78 vs. <0.78 mg/dL) | 0.058 | 0.615 | 0.765 (0.265–2.210) |
0.095 | ||
| GNRI (<98 vs. ≥98) | 0.357 | 0.379 | ||||
| mGPS (A, B, C vs. D) | 0.166 | 0.011 | 0.187 | 0.540 (0.217–1.341) |
||
| PNI (<40 vs. ≥40) | 0.26 | 0.013 | ||||
| Treatment modality (RT/CRT vs. surgery + RT/CRT) |
0.575 | 0.836 | ||||
Alb, albumin; CRP, C-reactive protein; CRT, chemoradiotherapy; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status; GNRI, geriatric nutritional risk index; Hb, hemoglobin; HR, hazard ratio; mGPS, modified Glasgow prognostic score; NA, not available; NLR, neutrophil–lymphocyte rate; OS, overall survival; PNI, prognostic nutritional index; RFS, relapse-free survival; RT, radiation therapy; SNSCC, sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma; UICC, 8th edition of the Union for International Cancer Control.
As visualized in Figure 5, the Kaplan-Meier curves revealed a 5-year RFS of 90% for the p16-overexpression group, compared with 66.9% for the p16-negative group. However, p16 overexpression was not significant in the univariate analysis (p = 0.142). Since these nutritional indicators confound each other, mGPS and ECOG PS were included in the multivariate analysis. In the multivariate analysis of RFS, which included the T category, Hb levels, mGPS, ECOG PS, and p16 overexpression, T1–4a (p = 0.004), ECOG PS 0 (p = 0.026), and p16 overexpression (p = 0.012) were identified as significant prognostic markers.
4. Discussion
The reported prevalence of HPV in SNSCC varies widely, ranging from 8.9% to 62% [5,23,24,25,26,27,28]. This considerable discrepancy can be attributed to differing definitions of HPV-related SNSCC, methodological differences in HPV detection, and small sample sizes. When studies focus solely on E6/E7 mRNA expression of the HPV gene, which is considered to most accurately reflect active transcriptional infection, prevalence rates tend to decrease by approximately 25% [7,25,29]. While the RNA-based test is recognized as the gold standard for accuracy, its complexity and cost prohibit its widespread use in the clinical setting [7]. Our study underscores the strong association of p16 overexpression with the presence of high-risk HPV DNA, suggesting that p16 immunohistochemistry might be a cost-effective, sensitive method for pinpointing transcriptionally active HPV infections in SNSCC. In the present study, p16 overexpression was present in 12.7% of SNSCC cases. Considering the small number of p16overexpressing cases and the cost-effectiveness of detecting HPV-related SNSCC, p16 immunohistochemistry should be examined first, and if p16 overexpression is found, PCR for HPV DNA or HPV DNA in situ hybridization tests are recommended. However, the number of patients with p16 overexpression was low (n = 10), and thus there might be a risk for bias in the present results. Further study is needed to confirm the importance of p16 overexpression in SNSCC, as shown in the present study, including the survival benefit, the characteristics of tumor location, and the increasing trend.
In OPSCC, the role of p16 overexpression as a surrogate marker for detecting active HPV infection has been well-established due to its robust predictive and prognostic value [4]. However, its precise cut-off value for overexpression in SNSCC has not yet been defined, which may account for the variance in p16 positivity rates among different studies. This lack of clarity might lead to reduced sensitivity of p16 immunohistochemistry as an indicator of transcriptionally active HPV in SNSCC as opposed to OPSCC. In the present study, approximately half of the cases had p16 immunoexpression, and moderate intensity of p16 expression was also observed in HPV-unrelated cases (Table 3). However, when the threshold for p16 overexpression was set at diffuse (≥75%) tumor expression with a minimum of moderate (+2/3) staining intensity, all samples with p16 overexpression had high-risk HPV strains with viral integration into the genome by PCR or DNA in situ hybridization, and these cases had a favorable prognosis. These results aligned with RNA-based tests, affirming their potential for effective survival prognosis stratification. In the present study, T4b and nutritional status were significantly associated with survival outcomes, which is consistent with previous reports [30,31]. Previous reports have found that low Hb and high CRP levels were associated with poor prognosis in head and neck cancer [32,33]. The results of the present study are consistent with those reports. A low Hb level has been linked to malnutrition, weight loss, and cancer cachexia [34], and a high CRP level reflects systemic inflammation. These nutritional and inflammatory markers might be important in the prognosis of SNSCC. In addition to these factors, p16 overexpression was an independent prognostic factor for RFS in multivariate analysis and linked to superior OS, as all p16-positive SNSCC of our cohort are alive. The literature has shown a possible survival advantage linked to p16 expression [24,27,28,30]. However, several reports have shown no survival benefits of p16 expression [23,35]. These discrepant findings could be attributed to differences in patient demographics, HPV testing methodologies, or classifications across studies. Our findings highlight the survival advantages of p16 overexpression in SNSCC, echoing the benefits seen in HPV-related OPSCC cases [4,22]. In the future, the definition of p16 overexpression in SNSCC should be clarified in the same way as in OPSCC through studies with larger cohorts and a unified detection protocol.
Insights into the viral load and integration status of SNSCC remain scarce. In this investigation, we provided data on HPV DNA viral load and viral integration status for SNSCC with p16 overexpression (Table 4). Our observed HPV types align with the high-risk subtypes detected in OPSCC at our institution [22]. Drawing parallels from our prior study on oropharyngeal carcinoma, the HPV-16 viral loads in OPSCC varied between 0.3 × 105 and 2.69 × 105 copies/ng DNA (median 2.666 × 104 copies/ng DNA). In contrast, the present study’s HPV-16 and HPV-33 viral loads in SNSCC ranged from 4.2 to 1.63 × 106 copies/ng DNA. Notwithstanding the limited sample size, viral loads in SNSCC did not significantly deviate from those in OPSCC, and all types showing p16 overexpression exhibited viral integration. These insights affirm the critical role of HPV, particularly in its relation to p16 overexpression, in shaping the landscape of SNSCC.
The location of HPV-related sinonasal cancer remains unclear. Previous reports showed no significant difference in HPV prevalence among sinonasal regions [7]. Recently, the prevalence of HPV was found to be higher in the nasal cavity than in the maxillary sinus by analysis of the National Cancer Database with various HPV detection methods [28]. According to a recent report from Italy [36], only 3% of nasal septum tumor was classified as SCC. In the present study, high-risk HPV was most frequently detected in the nasal cavity, which is in line with a recent meta-analysis, and this is the first report of this finding in Asia. Given the geographical and racial discrepancies in sinonasal carcinoma and HPV infection, further study is needed to clarify these aspects.
The availability of HPV status in OPSCC increased with each subsequent year of diagnosis from 2008: 0.1–0.2% for 2004–2008, 1.4% for 2009, 30.6% for 2010, 45.6% for 2011, and 56.9% for 2012 [37]. Recently, an increase in the incidence of HPV-associated SNSCC and the prevalence of HPV-positive SNSCC from 1995 to 2019 has been demonstrated using the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program) database in the United States [38]. The results of the present study on the prevalence of HPV-related SNSCC in an Asian country are consistent with those in the United States. This might reflect the widespread HPV infection in the head and neck. We must pay attention to HPV infection in the entire head and neck region, not only the oropharynx.
5. Conclusions
p16 overexpression combined with HPV DNA testing might be a reliable surrogate marker for HPV-related SNSCC and an accurate prognostic marker. High-risk HPV infection was the most frequently detected in the nasal cavity, and the prevalence of HPV-related SNSCC is increasing in Japan as in the United States. A larger multicenter prospective study is needed to clarify the prognostic significance of high-risk HPV infection in SNSCC patients treated with a multimodal approach.
Acknowledgments
We thank Yukari Matsuda, Nanami Nakamoto, and Mami Gakiya, the Ryukyu Society for the Promotion of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology and for administrative assistance related to this investigation. In addition, we thank Narumi Hasegawa and Junko Kawakami, the Ryukyu Society for the Promotion of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, for their support with the experiments.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm12216861/s1, Supplementary Methods; Table S1: Primers used for the detection of HPV DNA by PCR; Table S2: Primers used for the detection of viral loads and viral integration in real-time PCR.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, H.H., T.I. and M.S.; methodology, T.I. and H.H.; software, H.H. and M.S.; validation, H.H., T.I., M.T. and M.S.; formal analysis, H.H. and M.S.; investigation, T.I., K.T., H.H. and H.K.; resources, H.H., H.K., S.K., S.A., H.M., N.K., Y.O., T.H. (Tomoyo Higa), T.H. (Teruyuki Higa), T.T. and N.W.; data curation, H.H., K.T., M.T. and M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, H.H.; writing—review and editing, M.S. and T.I.; visualization, H.H., T.I. and M.S.; project administration, M.S.; funding acquisition, H.H., T.I., M.S. and T.H. (Teruyuki Higa). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Institutional Review Board Statement
This study was conducted with the approval of the Institutional Review Board of the University of Ryukyus (project identification code: 156, approved in September 2007) in accordance with the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki, as revised in 2008.
Informed Consent Statement
Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the present study have not been made publicly available. However, data can be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The sponsor had no role in the study’s design; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI Grant Numbers 20K097581, 21K09635, 21K09585, and 23K15889, to H.H., T.I., M.S., and T.H. (Teruyuki Higa), respectively).
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
References
- 1.Unsal A.A., Kilic S., Dubal P.M., Baredes S., Eloy J.A., EUROCARE-5 Working Group A population-based comparison of European and North American sinonasal cancer survival. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2018;45:815–824. doi: 10.1016/j.anl.2017.09.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Youlden D.R., Cramb S.M., Peters S., Porceddu S.V., Møller H., Fritschi L., Baade P.D. International comparisons of the incidence and mortality of sinonasal cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. 2013;37:770–779. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2013.09.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Tendron A., Classe M., Casiraghi O., Pere H., Even C., Gorphe P., Moya-Plana A. Prognostic analysis of HPV status in sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancers. 2022;14:1874. doi: 10.3390/cancers14081874. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ang K.K., Harris J., Wheeler R., Weber R., Rosenthal D.I., Nguyen-Tân P.F., Westra W.H., Chung C.H., Jordan R.C., Lu C., et al. Human papillomavirus and survival of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010;363:24–35. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0912217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Syrjänen K., Syrjänen S. Detection of human papillomavirus in sinonasal carcinoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum. Pathol. 2013;44:983–991. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2012.08.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Chang Sing Pang K.J.W., Mur T., Collins L., Rao S.R., Faden D.L. Human papillomavirus in sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-Analysis. Cancers. 2020;13:45. doi: 10.3390/cancers13010045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Svajdler M., Nemcova J., Dubinsky P., Metelkova A., Svajdler P., Straka L., Sakar R., Daum O., Michal M., Skalova A., et al. Significance of transcriptionally-active high-risk human papillomavirus in sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma: Case series and a meta-analysis. Neoplasma. 2020;67:1456–1463. doi: 10.4149/neo_2020_200330N332. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Sharma A., Tang A.L., Takiar V., Wise-Drape T.M. Human papillomavirus and survival of sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers. 2021;13:3677. doi: 10.3390/cancers13153677. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Sireci F., Lorusso F., Dispenza F., Immordino A., Gallina S., Salvago P., Martines F., Bonaventura G., Uzzo M.L., Spatola G.F. A Prospective Observational Study on the Role of Immunohistochemical Expression of Orphanin in Laryngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Recurrence. J. Pers. Med. 2023;13:1211. doi: 10.3390/jpm13081211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Mehanna H., Taberna M., von Buchwald C., Tous S., Brooks J., Mena M., Morey F., Grønhøj C., Rasmussen J.H., Garset-Zamani M., et al. Prognostic implications of p16 and HPV discordance in oropharyngeal cancer (HNCIG-EPIC-OPC): A multicentre, multinational, individual patient data analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24:239–251. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00013-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Hirakawa H., Ikegami T., Kise N., Kinjyo H., Kondo S., Agena S., Hasegawa N., Kawakami J., Maeda H., Suzuki M. Human papillomavirus infection and EGFR exon 20 insertions in sinonasal inverted papilloma and squamous cell carcinoma. J. Pers. Med. 2023;13:657. doi: 10.3390/jpm13040657. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Agarwal A., Bhatt A.A., Bathla G., Kanekar S., Soni N., Murray J., Vijay K., Vibhute P., Rhyner P.H. Update from the 5th Edition of the WHO Classification of Nasal, Paranasal, and Skull Base Tumors: Imaging Overview with Histopathologic and Genetic Correlation. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 2023;44:1116–1125. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A7960. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Doescher J., Veit J.A., Hoffmann T.K. The 8th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Updates in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery. HNO. 2017;65:956–961. doi: 10.1007/s00106-017-0391-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Ueda T., Chikuie N., Takumida M., Furuie H., Kono T., Taruya T., Hamamoto T., Hattori M., Ishino T., Takeno S. Baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is associated with clinical outcome in recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer patients treated with nivolumab. Acta Otolaryngol. 2020;140:181–187. doi: 10.1080/00016489.2019.1699250. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Zhao H.M., Xu L., Tang P., Guo R. Geriatric nutritional risk index and survival of patients with colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis. Front. Oncol. 2022;12:906711. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.906711. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Tong T., Guan Y., Xiong H., Wang L., Pang J. A meta-analysis of Glasgow prognostic score and modified Glasgow prognostic score as biomarkers for predicting survival outcome in renal cell carcinoma. Front. Oncol. 2020;10:1541. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.01541. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Luan C.W., Tsai Y.T., Yang H.Y., Chen K.Y., Chen P.H., Chou H.H. Pretreatment prognostic nutritional index as a prognostic marker in head and neck cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 2021;11:17117. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-96598-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Chang P.H., Yeh K.Y., Huang J.S., Lai C.H., Wu T.H., Lan Y.J., Tsai J.C.S., Chen E.Y.C., Yang S.W., Wang C.H. Pretreatment performance status and nutrition are associated with early mortality of locally advanced head and neck cancer patients undergoing concurrent chemoradiation. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;270:1909–1915. doi: 10.1007/s00405-012-2290-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Farhangfar A., Makarewicz M., Ghosh S., Jha N., Scrimger R., Gramlich L., Baracos V. Nutrition impact symptoms in a population cohort of head and neck cancer patients: Multivariate regression analysis of symptoms on oral intake, weight loss and survival. Oral. Oncol. 2014;50:877–883. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2014.06.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Bullock A.F., Greenley S.L., McKenzie G.A.G., Paton L.W., Johnson M.J. Relationship between markers of malnutrition and clinical outcomes in older adults with cancer: Systematic review, narrative synthesis and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2020;74:1519–1535. doi: 10.1038/s41430-020-0629-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Heianna J., Makino W., Hirakawa H., Yamashita Y., Tomita H., Murayama S. Therapeutic efficacy of intra-arterial docetaxel and nedaplatin infusion concomitant with radiotherapy for T4 maxillary sinus squamous cell carcinoma. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2022;51:1123–1130. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2021.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Yamashita Y., Ikegami T., Hirakawa H., Uehara T., Deng Z., Agena S., Uezato J., Kondo S., Kiyuna A., Maeda H., et al. Staging and prognosis of oropharyngeal carcinoma according to the 8th Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual in human papillomavirus infection. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;276:827–836. doi: 10.1007/s00405-018-05263-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.El-Mofty S.K., Lu D.W. Prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA in nonkeratinizing (cylindrical cell) carcinoma of the sinonasal tract: A distinct clinicopathologic and molecular disease entity. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2005;29:1367–1372. doi: 10.1097/01.pas.0000173240.63073.fe. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Bishop J.A., Guo T.W., Smith D.F., Wang H., Ogawa T., Pai S.I., Westra W.H. Human papillomavirus-related carcinomas of the sinonasal tract. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 2013;37:185–192. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182698673. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Larque A.B., Hakim S., Ordi J., Nadal A., Diaz A., del Pino M., Marimon L., Alobid I., Cardesa A., Also L. High-risk human papillomavirus is transcriptionally active in a subset of sinonasal squamous cell carcinomas. Mod. Pathol. 2014;27:343–351. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2013.155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Chowdhury N., Alvi S., Kimura K., Tawfik O., Manna P., Beahm D., Robinson A., Kerley S., Hoover L. Outcomes of HPV-related nasal squamous cell carcinoma. Laryngoscope. 2017;127:1600–1603. doi: 10.1002/lary.26477. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Also L., Moyano S., Nadal A., Alobid I., Blanch J.L., Ayala E., Lloveras B., Quint W., Cardesa A., Ordi J. Human papillomaviruses are identified in a subgroup of sinonasal squamous cell carcinomas with favorable outcome. Cancer. 2009;115:2701–2709. doi: 10.1002/cncr.24309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Kılıç S., Kılıç S.S., Kim E.S., Baredes S., Mahmoud O., Gray S.T., Eloy J.A. Significance of human papillomavirus positivity in sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma. Int. Forum. Allergy Rhinol. 2017;7:980–989. doi: 10.1002/alr.21996. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Laco J., Sieglová K., Vošmiková H., Dundr P., Němejcová K., Michálek J., Čelakovský P., Chrobok V., Mottl R., Mottlová A., et al. The presence of high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) E6/E7 mRNA transcripts in a subset of sinonasal carcinomas is evidence of involvement of HPV in its etiopathogenesis. Virchows Arch. 2015;467:405–415. doi: 10.1007/s00428-015-1812-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Nguyen E.S., Risbud A., Birkenbeuel J.L., Murphy L.S., Goshtasbi K., Pang J.C., Abiri A., Lehrich B.M., Haidar Y.M., Tjoa T., et al. Prognostic factors and outcomes of de novo sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2022;166:434–443. doi: 10.1177/01945998211021023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Suzuki H., Hanai N., Nishikawa D., Fukuda Y., Koide Y., Kodaira T., Tachibana H., Tomita N., Makita C., Hasegawa Y. The Charlson comorbidity index is a prognostic factor in sinonasal tract squamous cell carcinoma. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016;46:646–651. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyw049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Ma S.J., Yu H., Khan M., Yu B., Santhosh S., Chatterjee U., Gill J., Iovoli A., Farrugia M., Wooten K., et al. Defining the optimal threshold and prognostic utility of pre-treatment hemoglobin level as a biomarker for survival outcomes in head and neck cancer patients receiving chemoradiation. Oral. Oncol. 2022;133:106054. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2022.106054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Chen Y., Cong R., Ji C., Ruan W. The prognostic role of C-reactive protein in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: A meta-analysis. Cancer Med. 2020;9:9541–9553. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Dhanapal R., Saraswathi T., Govind R.N. Cancer cachexia. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Pathol. 2011;15:257–260. doi: 10.4103/0973-029X.86670. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Doescher J., Piontek G., Wirth M., Bettstetter M., Schlegel J., Haller B., Brockhoff G., Reiter R., Pickhard A. Epstein-Barr virus infection is strictly associated with the metastatic spread of sinonasal squamous-cell carcinomas. Oral. Oncol. 2015;51:929–934. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2015.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Sireci F., Dispenza F., Lorusso F., Immordino A., Immordino P., Gallina S., Peretti G., Canevari F.R. Tumours of Nasal Septum: A Retrospective Study of 32 Patients. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022;19:1713. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19031713. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Megwalu U.C., Chen M.M., Ma Y., Divi V. Surrogate for oropharyngeal cancer HPV status in cancer database studies. Head Neck. 2017;39:2494–2500. doi: 10.1002/hed.24921. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.London N.R., Jr., Windon M.J., Amanian A., Zamuner F.T., Bishop J., Fakhry C., Rooper L.M. Evaluation of the incidence of human papillomavirus-associated squamous cell carcinoma of the sinonasal tract among US adults. JAMA Netw. Open. 2023;6:e2255971. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.55971. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the present study have not been made publicly available. However, data can be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.