Abstract
While its prognostic significance remains unclear, p16INK4a protein expression is increasingly being used as a surrogate marker for oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC). To evaluate the prognostic utility of p16 expression in HNSCC, we prospectively collected 163 primary tumor specimens from histologically confirmed HNSCC patients who were followed for up to 9.4 years. Formalin fixed tumor specimens were tested for p16 protein expression by immunohistochemistry. HPV type-16 DNA and RNA was detected by MY09/11-PCR and E6/E7 RT-PCR on matched frozen tissue, respectively. P16 protein expression was detected more often in oropharyngeal tumors (53%) as compared with laryngeal (24%), hypopharyngeal (8%), or oral cavity tumors (4%; P<0.0001). With respect to prognosis, p16-positive oropharyngeal tumors exhibited significantly better overall survival than p16-negative tumors (log-rank test p=0.04), whereas no survival benefit was observed for non-oropharyngeal tumors. However, when both p16 and HPV DNA test results were considered, concordantly positive non-oropharyngeal tumors had significantly better disease-specific survival than concordantly negative non-oropharyngeal tumors after controlling for sex, nodal stage, tumor size, tumor subsite, primary tumor site number, smoking, and drinking (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]=0.04, 0.01–0.54). Compared with concordantly negative non-oropharyngeal HNSCC, p16(+)/HPV16(-) non-oropharyngeal HNSCC (n=13, 7%) demonstrated no significant improvement in disease-specific survival when HPV16 was detected by RNA (adjusted HR=0.83, 0.22–3.17). Our findings show that p16 immunohistochemistry alone has potential as a prognostic test for oropharyngeal cancer survival, but combined p16/HPV testing is necessary to identify HPV-associated non-oropharyngeal HNSCC with better prognosis.
INTRODUCTION
Human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC) represent a distinct set of tumors that exhibit better prognosis than their HPV-negative counterparts1,2. While the majority of HPV-positive head and neck cancers originate in the oropharynx, a subset of non-oropharyngeal head and neck cancers also present with HPV3. HPV DNA detected in these tumors is predominantly of genotype 16, a high-risk type also found in cervical cancer, and is often transcriptionally active, expressing the viral oncogenes E6 and E7.
The viral E7 product inactivates the retinoblastoma protein, which leads to perturbation in transcription factors including E2F4,5, leading to overexpression of p166. P16INK4 immuno-histochemistry is therefore increasingly being used as a surrogate for oncogenically active HPV infection to characterize HNSCC, particularly in the oropharynx. While some evidence shows that p16 overexpression in HNSCC is associated with improved survival and locoregional control7, results have been inconsistent8,9. While p16 overexpression may be useful as a surrogate marker for HPV infection in oropharyngeal SCC where HPV prevalence can be high, it has low positive predictive value (i.e., poorly discriminates false-positive from true-positive cases) in non-oropharyngeal HNSCC where HPV prevalence is much lower 10,11.
Current trials are assessing whether alternative treatment can be provided for HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancers12,13. To improve clinical management, it is critical that clinical tests accurately identify HPV-driven and non-HPV associated HNSCC. The gold standard for HPV detection uses PCR-based methods that target either HPV DNA or RNA sequences, but these are labor intensive and not yet clinically approved. Using a combination of biomarkers involving p16 followed by HPV reflex testing may therefore help improve accuracy in patient prognosis14,15. However, we have found that current options in clinical use, including in-situ hybridization assays for HPV DNA detection, perform poorly16. The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the prognostic utility of p16 protein expression alone and in combination with HPV16 detection in HNSCC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study population and samples
The study cohort consisted of 158 prospectively enrolled patients with 163 primary HNSCC (including 5 with multiple primary tumors) treated with curative intent at Montefiore Medical Center (MMC) in New York. Following histologic confirmation, stage was determined based on the American Joint Committee on Cancer classification (6th and 7th Editions), and detailed clinical and pathologic data, including information on smoking history and alcohol consumption, were collected by medical interview. Institutional Review Boards at MMC and Albert Einstein College of Medicine approved the study protocol, and all patients provided written informed consent.
Tumor samples and tissues were collected by surgical resection or biopsy prior to therapy, and immediately snap frozen in liquid nitrogen. Frozen tissues were screened for the presence of tumor cells, and the remaining tumor tissue was homogenized prior to laboratory analyses.
P16-INK4a immunohistochemistry (IHC)
Immunohistochemical detecting p16-INK4a was performed by a single pathologist (YW) blinded to HPV status. A portion of each tumor was routinely fixed in 10% buffered formalin and embedded in paraffin. Paraffin sections 4μm thick were placed on positively charged slides and heated at 60°C for 60 minutes. Sections were then deparaffinized and rehydrated through a series of xylene and graded alcohols (100%, 95%, and 75%). Endogenous peroxidase was blocked in 3% hydrogen peroxide for 10 minutes. Antigen from slides were retrieved with Dako Target Retrieval Solution, (Dako Cat.no.S1699), and immunoperoxidase staining was performed with an automatic slide stainer (Dako Autostainer Plus) using the Dako universal staining system. We used primary mouse monoclonal antibody against p16 (BD, cat.no.551154) in a dilution of 1:50 for 30 minutes at room temperature. After application of primary antibody, the slides were washed in buffered solution, and a secondary antibody (Dako Envision+ system-HRP Labelled Polymer, antimouse, Cat.no. K400111) was applied for 30 minutes. DAB Substrate kit (Dako, Cat.no.K346811) was used with 3,3’-diaminobenzidine as chromogen. Slides were counterstained with Surgipath Hematoxylin (Cat.no.01560), dehydrated through graded alcohols, cleared in xylene and coverslipped with cytoseal 60 (Richard-Allen Scientific, Cat.no.8310). Positive and negative controls consisted of uterine cervix with severe dysplasia, with and without primary antibody, respectively. Immunohistochemical expression for p16 was graded weak, moderate or strong according to nuclear and cytoplasmic staining intensity using clinically established criteria17. P16 was scored positive when > 50% of tumor cells presented with a strong nuclear stain. Tumors that did not meet this threshold of detection were classified as p16-negative. In sensitivity analyses, we separately assessed the survival patterns for p16-negative tumors with weak-to-moderate nuclear staining, and for tumors with cytoplasmic staining only classified as p16-negative.
HPV DNA and HPV16 E6/E7 mRNA detection
A detailed description of laboratory methods for HPV DNA detection by PCR and HPV16 RNA expression by reverse transcription PCR has been published elsewhere18. Briefly, presence of HPV-DNA was assessed using MY09/MY11/HMB01-PCR system with Gold AmpliTaq that amplifies a conserved 450 base-pair segment in the L1-sequence of HPV19,20,21 To assess for HPV16 mRNA expression, total RNA was extracted from the same or matched frozen tumor samples and tested for HPV16 transcripts using HPV specific oligonucleotide primers that span the 204 to 525 base-pair regions of the E6 and E7 oncogenes22,23. HPV16 RNA-positive tumors were defined as those that expressed either E6 or E7 transcripts. Tumors were defined as RNA-negative if they only expressed GAPDH, whose primers were included in each assay as an RNA control. Samples with low RNA viral loads (i.e., cycle thresholds for E6 and E7 >32) were considered HPV16 RNA negative. To assess the potential for contamination by batch effect, we co-extracted DNA and RNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue blocks24 from samples that were discordant for DNA and RNA and retested them using real-time HPV16 DNA and RNA PCR protocols. Samples were recoded based on the retest results.
Statistical analyses
The study sample included only histologically confirmed invasive SCC of the oropharynx (base of tongue, tonsil, soft palate, oropharyngeal wall, uvula and oropharynx-not otherwise specified [NOS]), hypopharynx (posterior pharyngeal wall, pyriform sinus and hypopharynx-NOS), larynx (glottis, supraglottis-aryepiglottic fold, supraglottis-false vocal cord, supraglottis-arytenoid, supraglottis-epiglottis, supraglottis-NOS and larynx-NOS), and oral cavity (buccal, alveolar ridge, anterior tongue, floor of mouth, hard palate, inner lip mucosa and retromolar trigone). Cases were grouped into oropharyngeal and non-oropharyngeal HNSCC for purpose of analysis.
Differences in detection of p16 protein expression by clinical and demographic characteristics were examined by contingency tables and non-parametric tests. Clinical outcomes assessed included overall survival, disease-specific survival and locoregional recurrence. Overall survival was defined as time from diagnosis (in months) to death from all causes. Disease-specific survival was defined as the time to death from disease, and locoregional recurrence as the time to either local or regional recurrence of disease. Progression-free survival was also assessed, defined as the time to local or regional recurrence, distant metastasis, or disease-specific death.
To evaluate associations between combined p16 and HPV16 detection with survival, we generated Kaplan Meier plots and constructed Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusting for strong prognostic indicators and potential confounders. The potential for confounding was examined for all socio-demographic and clinical indicators: age, gender, race, ethnicity, smoking history (including comparisons: never vs. ever, former and by pack-years), alcohol consumption, tumor anatomic site, tumor stage, primary treatment modality, method of specimen procurement (biopsy vs. surgical or laser resection), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and tumor location (bilateral vs. unilateral). Additionally, we confirmed that the proportional hazards assumption was met for all multivariable models. All statistical analyses were conducted with the SAS 9.3 statistical software package (Cary, NC), and all tests were two-sided.
RESULTS
Figure 1 depicts a flowchart of all HNSCC tested for p16 IHC, HPV16 DNA, and HPV16 RNA. Overall, a total of 163 primary HNSCC tumors were collected from 158 patients, including 51 (31%) from the oropharynx, 50 (30%) from the lip/oral cavity, 50 (30%) from the larynx, and 12 (7%) from the hypopharynx. From these, 124 (76%) tumors were tested for HPV16 DNA and 155 (95%) for HPV16 RNA. When we compared p16 with HPV16 positivity, there was moderate agreement across all HNSCC (kappa=0.63 for p16/HPV16 DNA, 95% CI: 0.45-0.80; kappa=0.64 for p16/HPV16 RNA, 95% CI: 0.50-0.79). Concordance was substantially higher in the oropharynx between p16 and HPV16 DNA (kappa=0.73, 95% CI: 0.51-0.95), as well as between p16 and HPV16 RNA (kappa=0.80, 95% CI: 0.64-0.97).
Figure 1.
Less than 4% (n=6/163) of all tumors tested by p16 IHC exhibited weak (n=2, ≤10% cells), moderate (n=1, ≤25% cells), or mixed weak/moderate p16 nuclear staining (n=3, ≤20% cells). Approximately 4% of tumors (n=7) showed only cytoplasmic staining and were classified as p16-negative. P16 protein expression was detected in 26% of tumors (n=42), although detection was significantly higher among oropharyngeal tumors (53%) relative to the larynx (24%), hypopharynx (8%), and oral cavity (4%; p<0.0001). Table 1 shows the prevalence of p16 across patient characteristics comparing the oropharynx to non-oropharyngeal HNSCC. Patients with p16-positive oropharyngeal tumors were more likely to be younger, have lower (improved) ECOG performance status scores, have higher nodal stage, be diagnosed with only one primary tumor, and smoked or drank alcohol less than those with p16-negative tumors. By contrast, there were no significant differences in p16 expression across demographic and clinical characteristics for patients with non-oropharyngeal tumors.
TABLE 1.
Study population characteristics stratified by p16 status and stratified by tumor site in the overall population
| Patient Demographics | Oropharynx (N=51)
|
Non-oropharynx (N=112)
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p16 Positive N=27 | p16 Negative N=24 | p-value1 | p16 Positive N=15 | p16 Negative N=97 | p-value1 | |
| Age at diagnosis in years | ||||||
| Mean (standard deviation) | 60 (8) | 65 (11) | 0.06 | 60 (10) | 63 (13) | 0.46 |
| Range | 46 - 76 | 40 - 84 | 41 - 77 | 22 - 91 | ||
| Sex, n (%) | ||||||
| Men | 21 (78%) | 18 (75%) | 1.00 | 9 (60%) | 72 (74%) | 0.35 |
| Women | 6 (22%) | 6 (25%) | 6 (40%) | 25 (26%) | ||
| Race2, n (%) | ||||||
| White/Asian | 16 (62%) | 10 (45%) | 0.38 | 8 (67%) | 64 (72%) | 0.74 |
| Black/African American | 10 (38%) | 12 (55%) | 4 (33%) | 25 (28%) | ||
| Ethnicity2, n (%) | ||||||
| Non-Hispanic | 20 (77%) | 19 (79%) | 1.00 | 9 (64%) | 64 (70%) | 0.76 |
| Hispanic | 6 (23%) | 5 (21%) | 5 (36%) | 28 (30%) | ||
| Smoking Status3, n (%) | ||||||
| Current Smoker | 5 (19%) | 13 (54%) | 0.013 | 6 (40%) | 35 (36%) | 0.533 |
| Ex-Smoker | 16 (59%) | 9 (38%) | 8 (53% | 48 (49%) | ||
| Never Smoker | 6 (22%) | 2 (8%) | 1 (7%) | 14 (14%) | ||
| Drinking Status3, n (%) | ||||||
| Current Drinker | 7 (26%) | 11 (46%) | 0.113 | 2 (13%) | 24 (25%) | 0.293 |
| Former Drinker | 4 (15%) | 4 (17%) | 3 (20%) | 21 (22%) | ||
| Never Drinker | 16 (59%) | 9 (38%) | 10 (67%) | 52 (54%) | ||
| Anatomical Site4, n (%) | ||||||
| Oropharynx | 27 (100%) | 24 (100%) | NA | NA | ||
| Oral Cavity | NA | NA | 2 (13%) | 48 (49%) | 0.01 | |
| Larynx | NA | NA | 12 (80%) | 38 (39%) | ||
| Hypopharynx | NA | NA | 1 (7%) | 11 (11%) | ||
| Overall Stage, n (%) | ||||||
| I – II | 5 (19%) | 8 (33%) | 0.34 | 4 (27%) | 22 (23%) | 0.75 |
| III – IV | 22 (81%) | 16 (67%) | 11 (73%) | 75 (77% | ||
| Nodal Stage n (%) | ||||||
| N0 | 5 (19%) | 8 (33%) | 0.02 | 6 (40%) | 46 (47%) | 0.52 |
| N1 | 0 | 4 (17%) | 1 (7%) | 15 (15%) | ||
| N2/3 | 22 (81%) | 12 (50%) | 8 (53%) | 36 (37%) | ||
| Tumor Size n (%) | ||||||
| T1 – T2 | 21 (78%) | 17 (71%) | 0.75 | 7 (47%) | 37 (38%) | 0.58 |
| T3 – T4 | 6 (22%) | 7 (29%) | 8 (53%) | 60 (62%) | ||
| Primary tumor site no., n (%) | ||||||
| 1ST | 27 (100%) | 20 (83%) | 0.04 | 14 (93%) | 81 (84%) | 0.46 |
| 2ND – 4TH | 0 | 4 (17%) | 1 (7%) | 16 (16%) | ||
| ECOG performance score2, n (%) | ||||||
| 1 | 22 (96%) | 14 (70%) | 0.04 | 7 (64%) | 54 (66%) | 1.00 |
| 2-4 | 1 (4%) | 6 (30%) | 4 (36%) | 28 (34%) | ||
| Initial treatment2, n (%) | ||||||
| Surgery | 15 (56%) | 9 (38%) | 0.26 | 8 (57%) | 60 (65%) | 0.56 |
| Non-surgical therapy5 | 12 (44%) | 15 (63%) | 6 (43%) | 32 (35%) | ||
P-value for 2-sided fisher exact test.
Row numbers may not sum to column totals due to missing data.
Smoking status was defined as never smoked, ex-smoker (at time of diagnosis), and current smoker. Drinking status was defined as never drank alcohol regularly for more than one year, former or current drinker (at time of diagnosis). P-values for two-sided Cochrane-Armitage trend test
Oropharynx includes: base of tongue, tonsil, soft palate, oropharyngeal wall, uvula, and oropharynx-NOS. Hypopharynx includes: posterior pharyngeal wall, pyriform sinus, and hypopharynx-NOS. Larynx includes: glottis, supraglottis-aryepiglottic fold, and epiglottis. Oral cavity includes: buccal, alveolar ridge, anterior tongue, floor of mouth, hard palate, inner lip mucosa, and retromolar trigone.
Primary non-surgical therapy was defined as treatment with either primary radiotherapy with or without concomitant chemotherapy, including planned neck dissection and salvage surgery.
We followed patients prospectively for up to 113 months from time of diagnosis (median follow-up=67 months). Compared to patients with p16-negative oropharyngeal tumors, patients with p16-positive oropharyngeal tumors exhibited better overall survival (log-rank p-value = 0.04, Fig. 2a) and progression-free survival (log-rank p-value = 0.17, Fig. 2b). Comparing p16-positive with p16-negative oropharyngeal tumors, multivariable analyses showed that patients with p16 positive disease had a 93% lower hazard-risk of death (p=0.01) (Table 2). Similar patterns of association were observed when we considered disease-specific mortality and locoregional recurrence. However, no benefit in disease-specific survival or locoregional recurrence was observed when we restricted our analyses to non-oropharyngeal HNSCC sites. Sensitivity analyses revealed that p16-negative tumors with weak-to-moderate nuclear p16 staining, or tumors with cytoplasmic p16 staining only, had similar survival patterns as compared to those with no p16 staining. Excluding these tumors from the analyses revealed no appreciable change in overall or progression free survival (data not shown).
Figure 2.
TABLE 2.
Adjusted1 hazard ratios (HRs) comparing positive versus negative p16 expression by tumor site
| Oropharynx (N=51)
|
Non-oropharynx (N=112)
|
All HNSCC sites (N=163)
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | P-value | HR (95% CI) | P-value | HR (95% CI) | P-value | |
| Overall Survival | ||||||
| p16 (positive vs. negative) | 0.07 (0.01 – 0.58) | 0.01 | 0.67 (0.29 – 1.55) | 0.34 | 0.43 (0.20 – 0.92) | 0.03 |
| Disease Specific Survival | ||||||
| p16 (positive vs. negative) | 0.13 (0.01 – 2.96) | 0.20 | 1.01 (0.32 – 3.15) | 0.98 | 0.71 (0.24 – 2.14) | 0.55 |
| Loco-regional Recurrence | ||||||
| p16 (positive vs. negative) | 0.10 (0.01 – 1.60) | 0.10 | 1.00 (0.28 – 3.63) | 1.00 | 0.59 (0.18 – 1.92) | 0.38 |
HRs adjusted for age, gender, nodal stage, tumor size, primary tumor site number, smoking, drinking and tumor sub-site (for non-oropharyngeal SCC)
When we evaluated survival in a subgroup of tumors with combined p16 and HPV16 detection, we observed a significant reduction in the hazard-risk of cancer death comparing positively concordant with negatively concordant HNSCC tumors after adjustment for sex, tumor subsite, nodal stage, tumor size, primary number, smoking and drinking (Fig. 3a and 3b). The association persisted even when restricted to non-oropharyngeal tumors (Fig. 3c and 3d), of which two cases were found to be concordantly positive: one in the hypopharynx and one in the larynx-supraglottis. While p16-positive/HPV16 DNA-negative non-oropharyngeal tumors showed some improvement in disease-specific survival as compared with tumors that were negative for both, the estimates did not reach statistical significance. No survival benefit was observed for p16-positive/HPV16 RNA-negative tumors as compared with tumors that were negative for both (Fig. 3d). Discordant tumors that were p16-negative/HPV16-positive, while rare in our study (N=4 p16-negative/HPV16 DNA-positive and N=2 p16-negative/HPV16 RNA-positive tumors), yielded no disease-specific mortality events; therefore, hazard ratios were not estimable. Although not shown here, similar patterns of associations were observed with overall survival and locoregional recurrence as endpoints.
Figure 3.
In the oropharynx, positively concordant tumors showed a ≥98% better overall survival (p<0.01) compared with negatively concordant tumors in multivariable models (Table 3). There were 4 discordant tumors that were p16-positive/HPV-negative, one base of tongue and 3 tonsil cancers. There was one documented death in this subgroup, not attributable to cancer or tumor recurrence. Hazard ratios for these discordant cases were not estimable due to the limited sample size. Similar patterns of associations were observed for progression-free survival, although estimates were not statistically significant due in part to few recurrences and cancer-specific deaths (data not shown).
TABLE 3.
Adjusted1 hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival in the oropharynx by p16/HPV16 testing
| Combined p16/HPV detection | p16/DNA detection
|
p16/RNA detection
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| deaths/n | HR (95% CI) | P-value | deaths/n | HR (95% CI) | P-value | |
| p16 (-), HPV (-) | 10/17 | 1.00 (referent) | 10/23 | 1.00 (referent) | ||
| p16 (+), HPV (-) | 1/3 | 2 | 1/4 | 1.01 (0.05 – 21) | 1.00 | |
| p16 (-), HPV (+) | 0/2 | 2 | 0/1 | 2 | ||
| p16 (+), HPV (+) | 1/15 | 0.02 (<0.01 – 0.23) | <0.01 | 2/22 | 0.01 (<0.01 – 0.34) | <0.01 |
HRs adjusted for gender, nodal stage, tumor size, primary tumor site number, smoking, and drinking
Cannot be assessed
DISCUSSION
With over 9 years of follow-up, our data showed an association between p16 expression and overall survival for cancers of the oropharynx. However, combined detection of p16 and HPV16 was superior in predicting survival than either method alone25 for oropharyngeal and non-oropharyngeal tumor sites. Our findings support emerging evidence from studies in other patient populations that highlight the importance of utilizing multiple prognostic biomarkers to detect clinically relevant, transcriptionally-active HPV in HNSCC15,14,25,26.
We found that the association between p16 protein expression and overall survival was restricted to oropharyngeal primary tumors. The survival advantage of p16 overexpression in oropharyngeal cancer appears to be due to its high correlation with high-risk HPV infection, as illustrated by the substantial concordance between p16 expression and HPV16 detection27,7,7,28. Detection of p16 expression in tonsillar cancer, in particular, demonstrates strong correlation with HPV DNA detection and E6/E7 mRNA expression29. However, we found this overlap did not extend to non-oropharyngeal tumors, where HPV prevalence was much lower, and p16 protein expression alone was not significantly associated with prognosis in these tumors.
When p16 expression was considered in combination with HPV16 status, we observed a ≥92% improvement in disease-specific survival for HNSCC positive for both p16 protein and HPV16, independent of head and neck cancer site. This is consistent with the literature. For example, a recent study of 179 HNSCC found no significant improvement in overall survival with either HPV16 DNA or p16 immunohistochemical staining alone after 5 years of follow-up14. However, positively concordant p16 and HPV16 E6/E7 measured in serology yielded a 70% improvement in overall survival when compared with negatively concordant tumors. In a prospective study of 647 HNSCC, p16-positive/HPV16 DNA-positive HNSCC showed a 59% improvement in disease-specific survival (p<0.01) compared with those that were negatively concordant, controlling for age, gender, stage, treatment, and smoking status30.
Furthermore, we found that the strong association between combined p16/HPV16 detection and disease-specific survival persisted for non-oropharyngeal HNSCC. We have previously reported that HPV16 detection, either by DNA PCR or RNA RT-PCR, similarly does not significantly predict disease-specific survival18. This is consistent with other studies that have reported no prognostic value of either p16 or HPV alone for non-tonsillar/base of tongue SCC31 or hypopharyngeal SCC9. However, some caution should be taken with this finding as there were only two non-oropharyngeal tumors in the subset of data analyzed. It is also possible that these represent misclassified oropharyngeal tumors, particularly those from regions adjacent to the oropharynx such as the larynx-supraglottic subsite32.
While discordance between p16 and HPV16 was observed in a subset of samples examined, most were p16-positive/HPV16-negative. In contrast to others who have reported poorer survival for these tumors14, we found no significant association with disease-specific survival when HPV16 was detected by E6/E7 RT-PCR. Retesting of discordant p16-negative/HPV16-positive tumors suggested these cases were initially misclassified in our data; a majority of these tumors (85%) were found to have low HPV16 RNA levels and were subsequently reclassified as negative for HPV1633. Alternatively, others have suggested that p16-positive/HPV16-negative HNSCC likely represent a distinct subgroup arising from genomic interruption of the p53/pRb pathway1,34.
While a growing consensus supports HPV16 RNA testing as the gold standard for HPV detection, we previously reported that overall survival is better with combined DNA and RNA HPV16 detection by PCR18. In the present study, we found no difference in survival benefit when we used combined p16/HPV16 DNA or RNA detection. Moreover, patients with tumors that tested HPV16-positive but p16-negative were relatively rare (3% and 1% of HNSCC tumors tested with HPV DNA and RNA, respectively) and had no cancer-related deaths. These findings support using combined p16/HPV DNA or RNA testing for HNSCC.
Our study has both strengths and limitations. Among the latter, we were not able to test all tumors for HPV16 DNA/RNA. However, sensitivity analyses showed no significant differences in clinical or demographic characteristics between patients with and without complete data on HPV16 DNA/RNA detection. Secondly, we had few numbers of non-oropharyngeal tumors to examine survival patterns by subsite. Larger studies are needed to confirm our findings given that HPV prevalence may differ across non-oropharyngeal HNSCC subsites.
Our study also had important strengths worth citing. First, we followed patients over a relatively longer period (up to 9.4 years) as compared with other studies35,36. Secondly, we were able to retest the majority of our samples using quantitative PCR methods, improving our HPV16 detection accuracy. Lastly, we were able to detect significant associations with disease-specific survival among oropharyngeal and non-oropharyngeal HNSCC by combined p16 and HPV detection.
In summary, our results confirm the use of p16 immunohistochemistry as a prognostic biomarker for oropharyngeal SCC. While testing for p16 protein expression in the tumor can miss a small number of HPV-positive cases that might not require more aggressive clinical management, a positive p16 result in oropharyngeal SCC is sufficient given the high positive predictive value and strong association with clinical outcome. In contrast, for non-oropharyngeal HNSCC, we would recommend testing all p16-positive cases using a PCR-based assay for HPV given the poor performance of p16 immunohistochemistry in non-oropharyngeal HNSCC, and risks associated with under-treatment. Larger clinical studies, however, are needed to confirm our findings.
Novelty and Impact.
P16 immunohistochemistry is increasingly being used to characterize oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in head and neck cancers. However, the prognostic role of p16 protein detection alone across different cancer sub-sites remains unclear. In this longitudinal study, the authors found that p16 alone predicts overall survival for oropharyngeal cancers but combined p16 immunohistochemistry with HPV16 detection by PCR was superior in predicting disease-specific survival than either method alone for oropharyngeal and non-oropharyngeal tumors.
Acknowledgments
We thank the participants of this study; Catherine Sarta, RN, for her time and effort spent enrolling and following participants and with data entry; Jaya Sunkara for her assistance with the immunohistochemistry analyses; and Gregory Rosenblatt for his assistance with data management. Nicole Anayannis also contributed significantly to this publication. This work is supported in part by NIH grants (CA131648 and DE023941), T32-DE007255 (Christian R. Salazar), and the Departments of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Pathology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center.
Footnotes
Authors report no conflict of interest
References
- 1.Gillison ML, Shah KV. Human papillomavirus-associated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: mounting evidence for an etiologic role for human papillomavirus in a subset of head and neck cancers. Curr Opin Oncol. 2001 May;13(3):183–188. doi: 10.1097/00001622-200105000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Smith EM, Rubenstein LM, Ritchie JM, et al. Does pretreatment seropositivity to human papillomavirus have prognostic significance for head and neck cancers? Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 2008;17:2087–2096. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Isayeva T, Li Y, Maswahu D, Brandwein-Gensler M. Human papillomavirus in non-oropharyngeal head and neck cancers: a systematic literature review. Head Neck Pathol. 2012 Jul;6(Suppl 1):S104–120. doi: 10.1007/s12105-012-0368-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Sano T, Oyama T, Kashiwabara K, Fukuda T, Nakajima T. Expression status of p16 protein is associated with human papillomavirus oncogenic potential in cervical and genital lesions. The American journal of pathology. 1998;153:1741–1748. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)65689-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Chellappan S, Kraus VB, Kroger B, et al. Adenovirus E1A, simian virus 40 tumor antigen, and human papillomavirus E7 protein share the capacity to disrupt the interaction between transcription factor E2F and the retinoblastoma gene product. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 May 15;89(10):4549–4553. doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.10.4549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Gillison ML, Koch WM, Capone RB, et al. Evidence for a causal association between human papillomavirus and a subset of head and neck cancers. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2000 May 3;92(9):709–720. doi: 10.1093/jnci/92.9.709. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Weinberger PM, Yu Z, Haffty BG, et al. Prognostic significance of p16 protein levels in oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2004 Sep;10(17):5684–5691. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-0448. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Geisler SA, Olshan AF, Weissler MC, et al. p16 and p53 Protein expression as prognostic indicators of survival and disease recurrence from head and neck cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2002 Nov;8(11):3445–3453. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Wilson DD, Rahimi AS, Saylor DK, et al. p16 not a prognostic marker for hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery. 2012 Jun;138(6):556–561. doi: 10.1001/archoto.2012.950. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Smeets SJ, Hesselink AT, Speel EJ, et al. A novel algorithm for reliable detection of human papillomavirus in paraffin embedded head and neck cancer specimen. International journal of cancer Journal international du cancer. 2007 Dec 1;121(11):2465–2472. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Adelstein DJ, Ridge JA, Gillison ML, et al. Head and neck squamous cell cancer and the human papillomavirus: summary of a National Cancer Institute State of the Science Meeting, November 9-10, 2008, Washington, D.C. Head Neck. 2009 Nov;31(11):1393–1422. doi: 10.1002/hed.21269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Fakhry C, Westra WH, Li S, et al. Improved survival of patients with human papillomavirus-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in a prospective clinical trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2008 Feb 20;100(4):261–269. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djn011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Ang KK, Harris J, Wheeler R, et al. Human papillomavirus and survival of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010 Jul 1;363(1):24–35. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0912217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Liang C, Marsit CJ, McClean MD, et al. Biomarkers of HPV in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer research. 2012 Oct 1;72(19):5004–5013. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-3277. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Smith EM, Pawlita M, Rubenstein LM, Haugen TH, Hamsikova E, Turek LP. Risk factors and survival by HPV-16 E6 and E7 antibody status in human papillomavirus positive head and neck cancer. International journal of cancer Journal international du cancer. 2010 Jul 1;127(1):111–117. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Schlecht NF, Brandwein-Gensler M, Nuovo GJ, et al. A comparison of clinically utilized human papillomavirus detection methods in head and neck cancer. Mod Pathol. 2011 Oct;24(10):1295–1305. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2011.91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Singhi AD, Westra WH. Comparison of human papillomavirus in situ hybridization and p16 immunohistochemistry in the detection of human papillomavirus-associated head and neck cancer based on a prospective clinical experience. Cancer. 2010 May 1;116(9):2166–2173. doi: 10.1002/cncr.25033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Salazar CR, Smith RV, Garg MK, et al. Human Papillomavirus-Associated Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Survival: A Comparison by Tumor Site and Initial Treatment. Head Neck Pathol. 2013 Sep 4; doi: 10.1007/s12105-013-0486-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Bauer HM, Ting Y, Greer CE, et al. Genital human papillomavirus infection in female university students as determined by a PCR-based method. JAMA. 1991 Jan 23-30;265(4):472–477. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Hildesheim A, Schiffman MH, Gravitt PE, et al. Persistence of type-specific human papillomavirus infection among cytologically normal women. The Journal of infectious diseases. 1994;169:235–240. doi: 10.1093/infdis/169.2.235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Palefsky JM, Holly EA, Gonzales J, Berline J, Ahn DK, Greenspan JS. Detection of human papillomavirus DNA in anal intraepithelial neoplasia and anal cancer. Cancer research. 1991 Feb;51(3):1014–1019. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.van Houten VM, Snijders PJ, van den Brekel MW, et al. Biological evidence that human papillomaviruses are etiologically involved in a subgroup of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. International journal of cancer Journal international du cancer. 2001 Jul;93(2):232–235. doi: 10.1002/ijc.1313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Braakhuis BJM, Snijders PJF, Keune WJH, et al. Genetic Patterns in Head and Neck Cancers That Contain or Lack Transcriptionally Active Human Papillomavirus. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2004;96(13):998–1006. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djh183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Kotorashvili A, Ramnauth A, Liu C, et al. Effective DNA/RNA co-extraction for analysis of microRNAs, mRNAs, and genomic DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded specimens. PloS one. 2012;7:e34683. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034683. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Holzinger D, Flechtenmacher C, Henfling N, et al. Identification of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas with active HPV16 involvement by immunohistochemical analysis of the retinoblastoma protein pathway. International journal of cancer Journal international du cancer. 2013 Sep 15;133(6):1389–1399. doi: 10.1002/ijc.28142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Braakhuis BJ, Brakenhoff RH, Leemans CR. Treatment choice for locally advanced head and neck cancers on the basis of risk factors: biological risk factors. Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology / ESMO. 2012 Sep;23(Suppl 10):x173–177. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mds299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Fischer CA, Kampmann M, Zlobec I, et al. p16 expression in oropharyngeal cancer: its impact on staging and prognosis compared with the conventional clinical staging parameters. Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology / ESMO. 2010;21:1961–1966. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdq210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Oguejiofor KK, Hall JS, Mani N, et al. The Prognostic Significance of the Biomarker p16 in Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Clinical oncology. 2013 Jul 31; doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2013.07.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Hoffmann M, Ihloff AS, Görögh T, et al. p16(INK4a) overexpression predicts translational active human papillomavirus infection in tonsillar cancer. International journal of cancer Journal international du cancer. 2010;127(7):1595–1602. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Hong A, Jones D, Chatfield M, et al. HPV Status of Oropharyngeal Cancer by Combination HPV DNA/p16 Testing: Biological Relevance of Discordant Results. Annals of surgical oncology. 2012 Dec 4; doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2778-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Marklund L, Nasman A, Ramqvist T, Dalianis T, Munck-Wikland E, Hammarstedt L. Prevalence of human papillomavirus and survival in oropharyngeal cancer other than tonsil or base of tongue cancer. Cancer medicine. 2012 Aug;1(1):82–88. doi: 10.1002/cam4.2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Lewis JS., Jr Not your usual cancer case: variants of laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck Pathol. 2011 Mar;5(1):23–30. doi: 10.1007/s12105-010-0232-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Holzinger D, Schmitt M, Dyckhoff G, Benner A, Pawlita M, Bosch FX. Viral RNA patterns and high viral load reliably define oropharynx carcinomas with active HPV16 involvement. Cancer research. 2012 Oct 1;72(19):4993–5003. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-3934. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Stephen JK, Divine G, Chen KM, Chitale D, Havard S, Worsham MJ. Significance of p16 in Site-specific HPV Positive and HPV Negative Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Cancer and clinical oncology. 2013;2(1):51–61. doi: 10.5539/cco.v2n1p51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Tribius S, Hoffmann M. Human papilloma virus infection in head and neck cancer. Deutsches Arzteblatt international. 2013 Mar;110(11):184–190. 190e181. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2013.0184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Nichols AC, Dhaliwal SS, Palma DA, et al. Does HPV type affect outcome in oropharyngeal cancer? Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d’oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale. 2013;42(1):9. doi: 10.1186/1916-0216-42-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]