Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Clin Cancer Res. 2008 Nov 1;14(21):7143–7150. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0498

Table 2.

Detection of HPV16 and any of 36 non-HPV16 mucosal HPV types in pre and post therapy oral rinse samples by tumor HPV status (N=135)

Tumor HPV status
HPV16-positive N=442 HPV16-negative N=911 Odds Ratio (95% CI)
Oral infection N (%) N (%) Unadjusted Adjusted3

HPV16
AT DIAGNOSIS
 Infection absent 30 (70) 86 (97) 1.0 1.0
 Infection present 13 (30) 3 (3) 12 (3.3, 47) 9.6 (2.4, 39)
FOLLOW-UP
 Infection absent 39 (89) 90 (99) 1.0 1.0
 Infection present 5 (11) 1 (1) 11 (1.1, 114) 14 (1.1, 188)
High risk HPV types (non-HPV16)4
AT DIAGNOSIS
 Infection absent 36 (84) 87 (98) 1.0 1.0
 Infection present 7 (16) 2 (2) 5.6 (1.4, 23) 5.4 (1.3, 22)6
FOLLOW-UP
 Infection absent 32 (73) 79 (87) 1.0 1.0
 Infection present 12 (27) 12 (13) 2.9 (1.1, 7.6) 2.9 (1.4, 5.7)
Low risk HPV types5
AT DIAGNOSIS
 Infection absent 37 (86) 86 (97) 1.0 1.0
 Infection present 6 (14) 3 (3) 4.7 (1.7, 20) 4.5 (1.1, 19)6
FOLLOW-UP
 Infection absent 40 (91) 82 (90) 1.0 1.0
 Infection present 4 (9) 9 (10) 0.6 (0.2, 2.1) 0.6 (0.2, 1.5)
1

Two HPV16-negative cases had missing baseline HPV line-blot data

2

One HPV16-positive case had missing baseline HPV line-blot data

3

Adjusted for age, gender, race

4

High risk HPV types 18, 33, 35, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 67, 68, 73 detected by PCR/line blot hybridization

5

Low risk HPV types 6, 11, 42, 55, 61, 62, 69, 72 detected by PCR/line blot hybridization 6 Adjusted for age only due to lack of model fit with inclusion of race and gender in model