Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 May 6;15(5):e0232474. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232474

Presence of HPV with overexpression of p16INK4a protein and EBV infection in penile cancer—A series of cases from Brazil Amazon

Valquíria do Carmo Alves Martins 1,2,3,*,#, Isabela Werneck Cunha 4,5, Giuseppe Figliuolo 1,6, Heidy Halanna de Melo Farah Rondon 2, Paloma Menezes de Souza 6, Felipe Luz Torres Silva 2, Guilherme Luz Torres Silva 6, Michele de Souza Bastos 7, Daniel Barros de Castro 3,8, Monique Freire Santana 1,7, Rajendranath Ramasawmy 3,7,9,#, José Eduardo Levi 10,#, Kátia Luz Torres 1,2,3,#
Editor: Marc O Siegel11
PMCID: PMC7202603  PMID: 32374757

Abstract

Background

In Brazil, penile cancer (PC) is not uncommon. The highest incidence of PC is in the North and Northeast of the country. In addition to phimosis, the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and Epstein-Baar Virus (EBV) infections are also related as risk factors for PC. The overexpression of p16INK4a is a surrogate sensitive marker of HPV infection in PC.

Objectives

To correlate p16INK4a overexpression and HPV infection status with EBV infection in a series of PC patients from the Amazon region.

Methods

Tumor tissues from 47 PC cases were analyzed for the presence of HPV and EBV DNA by PCR. All PC patients were diagnosed between 2013 and 2018 at a public reference cancer center hospital in Manaus, Amazonas—Brazil. HPV was genotyped using E7 HPV16/HPV18 type-specific real-time PCR and the PapilloCheck® HPV-Screening assay. p16INK4a expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry using the automated Ventana® BenchMark Ultra.

Results

The mean age of patients at the time of diagnosis was 57.4 years ±SD 17.8 ranging from 20 to 90 years old. Most of the patients (64%) came from rural areas of the Amazonas State. Thirty patients had phimosis (64%). Among the patients with phimosis, 43% (13/30) underwent circumcision, three during childhood and 10 in adulthood. 60% of the patients were smokers or ex-smokers. HPV infection was observed in 45% (21/47) of cases. HPV16 was detected in 13 patients (61%). Other HPV types detected were HPV 6, 11, 42, 51, 53, 68 and 44/55. EBV infection was observed in 30% (14/47) of the patients with PC. Co-infection with HPV and EBV was observed in 28% (6/21) cases. p16INK4a was only investigated in 26 samples. The p16INK4a overexpression was observed exclusively in HPV 16 positive cases and four HPV negative cases. In the survival analysis, the follow-up time was 35.4 months/patient. The mortality rate during the follow up time was 38%.

Conclusions

p16INK4a positivity presented a high correlation to HPV 16 DNA detection, reinforcing its use as a surrogate marker for HPV-driven cancers. Infection with EBV was quite frequent and its role in epithelial penile oncogenesis needs to be demonstrated.

Introduction

The occurrence of Penile Cancer (PC) varies worldwide. In developed countries, PC has a low incidence, corresponding to 0.3–1% of malignant neoplasms in men. In some developing countries, the incidence of PC may be much higher than the global average incidence [13]. In Brazil, PC accounts for approximately 2.1% of all tumors in men being the highest incidence reported in the Latin America (2.9–6.8 cases per 100,000 men-years) [3]. We can find regional rate differences along the country. In the North and Northeast of Brazil, PC incidence is five times higher compared to the Midwest, South and Southeast regions [4]. According to the Brazilian National Cancer Institute (INCA), the death rate from PC in the northern region of Brazil has doubled in the last decade, from 0.05% to 0.10% [5].

PC is a multifactorial disease and the risk factors and/or favorable conditions to develop PC are not fully established. Phimosis and smegma accumulation are observed in more than 80% of the patients with PC associated with chronic inflammation process [6,7]. Other factors, such as smoking and sexually transmitted infection, are also related to the onset of neoplasms [7,8]. HPV infection is present in approximately 50% of PC cases and the most prevalent genotype is HPV16 (30%) [7,911]. A recent meta-analysis study of 52 studies showed a pooled prevalence of 50.8% (44.8–56.7) of HPV infection in PC with a rate of 68.3% (58.9–77.1) of HPV16 [12].

The role played by HPV in carcinogenesis of the penis appears to be similar to cervical cancer. HPV encodes the E6 and E7 oncogenes which are required for malignant transformation and maintenance of host cells. The viral oncoproteins (E6 and E7) may compromise the regulation of the host cell cycle and lead to an uncontrolled proliferation [13,14]. P16 is a tumor suppressor gene and its protein is physiologically expressed in normal tissues. The inactivation of the retinoblastoma gene (pRb) by HPV E7 results in overexpression of p16INK4a due to the lack of negative feedback loop between pRb and p16 protein [15]. The overexpression of p16INK4a in tumor cells has been shown to correlate with high-risk HPV DNA detection in PC [16].

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is another agent associated with PC [17,18]. Inappropriate expression of its latent genes (Latent Membrane Protein) LMP-1, LMP-2A e LMP-2B, involved in cell persistence, may contribute to the development of tumors [19]. EBV is suggested as a viral cofactor rather than a primary carcinogen in Burkitt’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s disease, nasopharyngeal carcinoma [17,20]. In HPV-associated cancer, the presence of EBV may also act as a viral cofactor [21]. Several studies have shown the presence of EBV and co-infection with HPV in PC but a relationship between PC and EBV is yet to be established [17,18].

In light of the possible roles of HPV and EBV infection in the development of PC, this study investigated p16INK4a expression and HPV and EBV infection in a series of patients with PC from the Brazilian Amazon region.

Materials and methods

Enrollment

A total of 47 patients with PC and no concomitant urological neoplastic diseases participating in the study were attended at the public reference cancer center hospital—Fundação Centro de Controle de Oncologia do Estado do Amazonas/FCECON from 2013 to 2018. The patients were followed at the Urology clinic of the hospital. All patients were surgically treated by total or partial penectomy.

All patients provided written informed consent and were interviewed to fill a questionnaire concerning sociodemographic data and risk factors. Histopathology characteristics of the tumors were obtained from the medical charts.

This study was approved by the internal review board of the Ethics Committee of the FCECON—approval document #2.230.007, August 21, 2017. SISGEN- A5F36C5.

Biological samples collection

At the moment of surgery, three to five mm3 of tissue fragments (mass of 50-150mg) from the tumor were collected and stored in a dry plastic microtube free of DNAse and RNAse. Samples were stored at -30 °C until processed.

DNA extraction

DNA was extracted from the frozen tissue (mass of 20-40mg from different parts of the tumor) using the DNeasy® Blood & Tissue Kit (QIAGEN Inc., USA), according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. The DNA was eluted in a volume of 200 μL UltraPure DNase/RNase-Free Distilled Water (Invitrogen Life Technologies, São Paulo, Brazil).

Human β-globin PCR

For DNA extraction quality control, the human β-globin gene was amplified by PCR as previously described in the literature with the following pair of primers: GH20: (5’GAAGAGCCAAGGACAGGTAC’3) and PCO4: (5’CAACTTCATCCACGTTCACC’3) generating a 270 bp DNA fragment [22].

HPV detection

All samples were submitted to generic HPV PCR using the consensus primers (PGMY09/11) which amplifies a 450 bp DNA fragment within the L1 region of mucosal HPVs [23]. Amplification was carried out as previously described using 50–100 ng of DNA in 25 μL of reaction mixture and a thermocycling profile of 1 cycle at 5 min at 95 °C, followed by 40 cycles: 1 min at 95 °C, 1 min at 55°C, and 1 min at 72 °C, with a final extension for 10 min at 72 °C. The PCR products (450 bp DNA) were analyzed on 1.5% agarose gel stained with SYBR Safe DNA Gel Stain (Invitrogen Life Technologies, São Paulo, Brazil) for visualization of DNA under UV light and 100 bp DNA ladder was used as molecular weight control pattern. Precautions to avoid contamination were followed. DNA from the HeLa cell line which harbors 10–20 copies of integrated HPV 18 per cell was used as a positive control in all reactions.

E7 HPV16/HPV18 type-specific real-time PCR

All samples were also submitted to two specific TaqMan based real-time qPCR assays targeting either HPV16/HPV18 E7 gene in an ABI 7300 Real-Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). All samples and controls were run in duplicate.

HPV16-E7

qPCR assay included the following primers: forward (5’GATGAAATAGATGGTCCAGC3’) and reverse (5’GCTTTGTACGCACAACCGAAGC3’) primers, and the probe (5’FAM-CAAGCAGAACCGGACAG-MGB-NFQ) in a final reaction volume of 25 μL [24]. Each qPCR reaction contained 1X TaqMan master mix (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA), 400 nM each of the forward and reverse primers, 200 nM of fluorogenic TaqMan probe, and 50–100 ng of DNA. The amplification conditions consisted of 50 °C for 2 min and 95°C for 10 min, followed by 40 cycles of 95 °C for 15 sec, 55 °C for 1 min, and 60 °C for 1 minute. DNA from a SiHa cell line which contains 1–2 copies of integrated HPV 16 per cell was used as a positive control in all reactions.

HPV18-E7

qPCR assay included the following primers: forward (5’AAGAAAACGATGAAATAGATGGA3’) and reverse (5’GGCTTCCACCTTACAACACA3’) primers, and a probe (5’VIC-AATCATCAACATTTACCAGCC-MGBNFQ3’) in a final reaction volume of 25 μL, each qPCR contained 1X TaqMan master mix (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA), 400 nM each of the forward and reverse primers, 400 nM fluorogenic TaqMan probe, and 50–100 ng of DNA [24]. The amplification conditions consisted of 50°C for 2 min and 95°C for 10 min, followed by 40 cycles of 95°C for 15 sec, 50°C for 1 min, and 60°C for 1 min. DNA from the HeLa cell line which harbors 10–20 copies of integrated HPV 18 per cell was used as a positive control in all reactions.

HPV genotyping—PapilloCheck® HPV-Screening

All samples that were positive in generic HPV DNA (PGMY09/11) and negative for 16/18 genotypes were submitted to HPV-Screening Test (Greiner Bio-One GmbH, Frickenhausen, Germany) to identify other genotypes. This is a PCR-based DNA microarray system for detection and identification of 24 HPV genotypes, including 16 high-risk HPV genotypes (HPV 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56,58, 59, 68, 70, 73, 82), 2 probable high-risk HPV genotypes (HPV 53,66) and 6 low-risk-HPV genotypes (HPV 6, 11, 40, 42, 43, 44/55) [25].

EBV detection

EBV DNA detection was performed as described elsewhere [26]. Briefly, a sensitive multiplex PCR which amplifies 182 bp within the Exons 4/5 from the terminal protein RNA of EBV and a fragment of human β-actin 450 bp as internal control. The following pairs of primers for PCR amplification were used: EP5-AACATTGGCAGCAGGTAAGC and EM3 -ACTTACCAAGTGTCCATAGGAGC for EBV and B-ACT F–TCTACAATGAGCTGCGTGTG and B-ACT R -CATCTCTTGCTCGAAGTC for β-actin. PCR was performed as follows: 1 cycle at 5 min at 95°C, followed by 10 cycles of 30 sec at 95°C, 60 sec at 63°C and subsequently by 30 cycles of 30 sec at 95°C, 30 sec at 60°C, and 30 sec at 72°C, with a final extension for 40 sec at 72°C. PCR products were analyzed on 1.8% agarose gel stained with SYBR Safe DNA Gel Stain (Invitrogen Life Technologies, São Paulo, Brazil) for visualization of DNA under UV light and 100 bp DNA ladder was used as molecular weight control pattern. An EBV positive known sample from the laboratory was used as control.

Immunohistochemistry for p16INK4a

Twenty six samples from PC patients, spotted in tissue microarray were submitted to the immunohistochemistry (IHC) assay for qualitative detection of the p16INK4a (21 samples were not available due to pre-analytical factors). IHC assay was performed in an automated system using the Ventana® BenchMark Ultra according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The IHC slides were analyzed by a pathologist. Positivity for p16INK4a was defined as unequivocally nuclear and cytoplasmic staining of at least 70% of the tumor cells [27,28].

Statistical analysis

Data were compiled using Epi Info version: 7.2.2.2 and analyzed using Stata application (v.13, StataCorp, 2013, College Station, Texas, USA). Descriptive analyses were performed using frequency tables. In this study, we analyze independently the relationship between the sociodemographic and clinical profile of patients with PC and three different outcomes: (i) p16INK4a overexpression, (ii) HPV infection status and (iii) EBV infection status. Univariate logistic regression models were used to analyze the relationship between these outcomes and sociodemographic and clinical profile of patients with PC and calculate the odds ratios. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Those variables that presented an association at a level of significance of 0.2 in the univariate logistic regression were selected to perform the multiple logistic regression. Multiple logistic regression models were used to identify the independent relationships between clinical characteristics of the patients and the studied outcomes. In this manner, adjusted odds ratios were calculated. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine the differences between survival time of patients stratified by HPV and EBV infection, and with p16INK4a overexpression. Groups were compared using the log rank test, taking a p-value less than 0.05 as statistically significant.

Results

HPV and EBV were investigated in tumor tissues from 47 patients with PC, aged 20 to 90 years old (mean 57.4 years ±SD 17.8). Ten patients were below the age of 39 (21%). 64% of the patients came from rural areas of the Amazonas State, 23% from Manaus, the capital city and 13% from other Northern states of Brazil. 79% of the patients with PC were Amerindians descendent (mestizo) and 83% had less than eight years of schooling. 32% of the patients had total penectomy and 68% had partial penectomy. Lymphadenectomy was performed in 13/47 (28%) patients (Table 1).

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of patients diagnosed with penile cancer at Amazon—Brazil.

Variables n %
Age at diagnosis
Mean age 57,4 (SD 17.8) (n = 47)
18–39 10 21
40–59 15 32
> 60 22 47
Ethnicity (n = 47)*
Caucasians (whites) 6 13
Blacks 2 4
Mestizo 37 79
Indigenous 2 4
Formal education time (n = 47)
<1 year 10 21
1–8 years 29 62
9–12 years 8 17
>12 years 0 0
Marital status (n = 47)
Single 9 19
Married 26 56
Widower 10 21
Divorced 2 4
Origin (n = 47)
Capital city (Manaus) 11 23
Amazonas (interior) 30 64
Other Northern states 6 13
Penectomy type (n = 47)
Partial 32 68
Total 15 32
Tumor location (n = 43)
Glans 7 16
Foreskin 1 2
Glans and Foreskin 25 58
Glans, Foreskin and base 7 17
All over the organ 3 7
Predominant gross finding (n = 40)
Ulcerated 15 37
Verruciform 19 48
Ulcerated and Verruciform 6 15
Tumor subtype (n = 20)
Basaloid 5 25
Warty 2 10
Cuniculatum 1 5
Sarcomatoid 1 5
Usual 11 55
TNM [30] (n = 32)
pTx 1 3
pT1 –pT2 18 56
pT3- pT4 13 41
Histological grade (n = 33)
Grade I 4 12
Grade II 19 58
Grade III 10 30
Lymphadenectomy (n = 47)
Yes 13 28
No 34 72
Metastasis (n = 40)
Yes 12 29
No 28 71
Follow up (n = 47)
Dead 18 38
Alive 29 62

*self-declared; n: Absolute frequency; %: Relative frequency

All cases were diagnosed as squamous cell carcinoma. Of the 47 patients with PC, we were able to review and reclassify only 20 patients according to the 2016 WHO classification [29]. The most common histology subtype was “usual” in 11/20 (55%). We could obtain tumor characteristic from the medical records for only 43 patients. 58% of tumors were located in the glans and foreskin and the predominant pattern of growth was verruciform (48%). Other clinical and pathological parameters can be appreciated in Table 1.

In this study, 36% of the patient had a history of cancer in the family. 60% of the patients were smokers or ex-smokers and 64% had phimosis. 43% were circumcised, mostly in adulthood. 28% of the patients reported a history of sexually transmitted diseases once or several times in their adulthood (Table 2).

Table 2. Risk factors of the 47 patients diagnosed with penile cancer at Amazon—Brazil.

Risk factors n %
Family history of cancer (n = 47)
Yes 17 36
No 30 64
Smoking History (n = 47)
Smoking / Ex-Smoking 28 60
No Smoking 19 40
Phimosis (n = 47)
Yes 30 64
No 17 36
Postectomy (n = 30)
Yes 13 43
No 17 57
Time of postectomy (n = 13)
Childhood 3 23
Adulthood 10 77
Sexually transmitted diseases (n = 47)
Yes 13 28
No 34 72

n: Absolute frequency; %: Relative frequency

The prevalence of HPV is shown in Table 3. HPV DNA was detected in 45% (21/47) of the patients with PC. HPV 16 was the most prevalent genotype 61% (13/21). The other 8 genotypes detected were HPV 6, 11, 42, 51, 53, 68 and 44/55. One patient had multiple co-infections; genotypes 16, 42, 44/55. The distribution of EBV and HPV among the patients with PC is shown in Fig 1. EBV infection was observed in 14 out of 47 patients (30%). Co-infection HPV/EBV was detected in 6 patients, four with HPV 16/EBV and two with HPV 6/EBV and HPV 53/EBV, each. The p16INK4a overexpression was observed in three patients with co-infection HPV/EBV, all HPV 16.

Table 3. HPV infection prevalence and genotyping at 47 patients diagnosed with penile cancer at Amazon—Brazil.

Virus infection (n = 47) n %
HPV—Positive 21 45
HPV—Negative 26 55
HPV genotyping (N = 21) n %
6 1 5
11 1 5
16 13 61
44/55 1 5
51 2 9
53 1 5
68 1 5
16,42,44/55 1 5

n: Absolute frequency; %: Relative frequency

Fig 1. Distribution of HPV and EBV status among the patients with penile cancer at Amazon—Brazil.

Fig 1

EBV: Epstein-Barr virus; HPV: Human papillomavirus.

Association of p16INK4a overexpression with clinical factors and HPV infection status are shown in Table 4. Overexpression of p16INK4a was found in 12 cases 46% (12/26). Patients with phimosis had 11 times more chance of having overexpression of p16INK4a [OR = 11 (95%CI 1.1–109.7); p = 0.04]. The p16INK4a overexpression was observed in the eight HPV 16 positive cases and in four HPV-. Other clinical factors were not significantly associated with HPV infection and p16INK4a overexpression. HPV infection and p16INK4a overexpression were also related to some histological subtypes, HPV infection being positive in the basaloid subtypes (45%) and negative in usual subtypes (81%) (Table 4). Regarding p16INK4a overexpression, of the 11 nonsmokers patients, eight presented over expression of p16INK4a while only four patients of the 15 smokers were with p16INK4a overexpression [OR = 0.13 (95%CI 0.02–0.780); p = 0.026]. Notably, of the eight nonsmoker’s patients with p16INK4a overexpression, six had HPV 16 genotypes and the remaining two were negative for HPV. Among the four smoker’s patients with p16INK4a overexpression, two were HPV16 and two negative for HPV. HPV+ patients with PC had poorly differentiated carcinomas (Grade III) compared to HPV- patients with PC [OR = 0.07 95%CI 0.01–0.047; p = 0.005].

Table 4. Relationship between p16INK4a overexpression, HPV infection status, EBV infection status and clinical factors at 47 patients diagnosed with penile cancer.

Variable p16 HPV EBV
Total Absent Present OR (95% CI) P value Total Absent Present OR (95% CI) P value Total Absent Present OR (95% CI) P value
n n n n n n
Age (years)
≤ 45 8 5 3 13 8 5 13 9 4
> 45 18 9 9 0.36 (0.05–2.34) 0.284 34 18 16 1.40 (0.38–5.24) 0.597 34 24 10 0.94 (0.23–3.76) 0.927
Smoking or Ex Smoking
No 11 3 8 19 11 8 19 13 6
Yes 15 11 4 0.13 (0.02–0.78) 0.026* 28 15 13 1.19 (0.37–3.86) 0.770 28 20 8 0.87 (0.24–3.08) 0.825
Phimoses
No 8 7 1 17 10 7 17 11 6
Yes 18 7 11 11.0 (1.10–109.67) 0.041* 30 16 14 1.25 (0.38–4.16) 0.716 30 22 8 0.67 (0.18–2.40) 0.535
Postectomy
No 11 5 6 17 9 8 17 13 4
Yes 7 2 5 2.08 (0.27–15.77) 0.477 13 7 6 0.96 (0.23–4.10) 0.961 13 9 4 1.44 (0.28–7.34) 0.658
Histological grading
Grade I / II 10 4 6 10 2 8 10 6 4
Grade III/IV 12 6 6 0.66 (0.12–3.63) 0.640 23 18 5 0.07 (0.01–0.46) 0.005* 23 15 8 0.80 (0.17–3.68) 0.775
Tumor subtype (n = 20)
Basaloid 5 0 5 5 0 5 5 4 1
Warty 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 1 1
Cuniculatum 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1
Sarcomatoid 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
Usual 10 7 3 0.062 11 9 2 0.009* 11 7 4 0.540
TNM (AJCC, 8°ed.)
T1 –T2 10 5 5 19 10 9 19 13 6
T3 –T4 11 8 3 0.37 (0.06–2.30) 0.290 13 7 6 0.95 (0.23–3.91) 0,946 13 9 4 0.96 (0.20–4.42) 0,961
Lymphadenectomy
No 16 8 8 34 17 17 34 25 9
Yes 10 6 4 0.66 (0.13–3.30) 0.619 13 9 4 0.44 (0.11–1.72) 0.190 13 8 5 1.73 (0.44–6.71) 0.424
Metastase
No 16 7 9 29 15 14 29 20 9
Yes 9 6 3 0.38 (0.07–2.13) 0.250 12 7 5 0.71 (0.19–2.97) 0.700 12 8 4 1.11 (0.26–4.66) 0.886
Death
No 12 7 5 29 17 12 29 22 7
Yes 14 7 7 0.71 (0.15–3.38) 0.671 18 9 9 1.41 (0.43–4.62) 0.564 18 11 7 2.00 (0.55–7.14) 0.286
EBV
Negative 17 9 8 33 18 15 - - -
Positive 9 5 4 0.9 (0.17–4.56) 0.899 14 8 6 0.90 (0.26–3.17) 0.870 - - - - - -
HPV
Negative 11 7 4 - - - 26 18 8
Positive 15 7 8 2.0 (0.40–9.83) 0.394 - - - - - - 21 15 6 0.90 (0.25–3.17) 0.870
HPV Genotype
HR-HPV 11 3 8 - - - 17 12 5
LR-HPV 4 4 0 - - - - - - - - - 4 3 1 0.80 (0.06–9.66) 0.861

HPV: Human papillomavirus; HR-HPV: High-oncogenic risk; LR-HPV: Low oncogenic risk; EBV: Epstein-Barr virus; n: Absolute frequency; Odds Ratio (OR) were calculated by logistic regression.

*statistically significant (p-value < 0.05) and (p-value adjusted < 0.05)

In the survival analysis, the follow-up time was 35.4 months/patient. The mortality rate during the study period was 38% (18/47). Survival analysis was performed by stratification of the patients into p16INK4a+ vs p16INK4a-, HPV+ vs HPV-, EBV+ vs EBV- and HPV/EBV co-infection vs no infection. Infection status of the deceased and survival patients is shown in S1 Table. There is no evidence of differences in survival of patients according to p16 overexpression (Plog rank = 0.753), HPV infection (Plog rank = 0.979), EBV infection (Plog rank = 0.106) and HPV/EBV co-infection (Plog rank = 0.318) (Fig 2).

  1. P16 expression and overall mortality

  2. HPV status and overall mortality

  3. EBV status and overall mortality

  4. HPV/EBV co-infection vs no infection and overall mortality

Fig 2. The y-axis represents the survival function and x-axis represents the follow-up length in days.

Fig 2

Overall survival depending on p16INK4a expression (A), HPV infection status (B), positive and negative for EBV (C) and HPV/EBV co-infection (D). EBV: Epstein-Barr virus; HPV: Human papillomavirus.

Discussion

In the Northern region of Brazil, the mortality rate from PC has doubled in recent years according to INCA [5]. The state of Amazonas, the largest state in Brazil, covers a geographical area of 1,559,168.12 km2 and has about 4 million inhabitants. Half of the population lives in the capital city, Manaus while the other half is distributed irregularly in the rural regions with low density population with very poor access to health services [31].

The disease affects mainly men between the fifth and seventh decade of life [2,6,32]. In this study, the mean age of the diagnosis of PC was 57.4 years, with a higher prevalence in the age group below 59 years. However, young adults less than 30 years were also diagnosed with PC (9%). Other studies in the country have also reported the early occurrence of PC [4,3337]. The risk factors and carcinogenesis of PC among young adults is still not established. In this study, young patients were at an advanced stage of the disease. Half of them underwent total penectomy and had metastasis. Of the four young patients, one had co-infection HPV 6/EBV and one HPV 44/55. Two were HPV negative. Interestingly, none of them had high-risk HPV. This may suggest that there are other factors or genetic and molecular changes possibly involved in the development of PC in young adults.

In this study, most of the patients came from the interior of Amazonas and belong to riverside isolated populations with low levels of education and poor access to health services. Besides, they have poor knowledge about the disease and seek diagnosis at an advanced stage. This reality was also observed by Chalya et al. (2015) in Tanzania [38] and in Brazil by other groups [3335,39,40].

PC usually begins with a superficial or ulcerated lesion on the glans and foreskin, but can also spread through the penile shaft and the scrotum [41]. In the current study, the initial lesion was diagnosed in the glans and/or prepuce in 76% of the cases similar to other studies [4,38,42]. Lesions were predominantly of the verruciform type followed by warts. The accumulation of smegma due to poor hygiene followed by probable irritation of the local is a favorable environment for several infections. Chronic inflammatory processes may progress to the development of lesions and if untreated, can lead to neoplasm [7].

In the present study, 70% (23/33) of the patient showed well and moderately differentiated tumors (Grade I/II) and was not associated with HPV infection (adjusted p-value = 0.006). Patients with HPV presented higher grade tumor. Histopathology grade is an important prognostic factor. Degree of poorly differentiated cell could indicate a worse prognosis of lesions. Our findings reinforced other studies observations [43,44].

Phimosis, a well-known risk factor for the development of PC, was present in 64% of the patients. 43% were submitted to circumcision during adulthood. Adult circumcision is known to have no protective effect against the development of PC [45]. The univariate logistic regression showed that patients with phimosis had 11 times more chance of overexpression of p16INK4a [OR = 11 (95%CI 1.1–109.7); p = 0.04]. Among men circumcised in adulthood, phimosis was strongly associated with development of invasive penile cancer, in concordance with the findings of Daling, et al. (2005) [46].

Of note, the presence of HPV in an individual does not mean that the individual will develop cancer. There are many risk factors that contribute to the development or not such as the environment and the genetic background of the individuals as well as the viral clearance capacity of the individual. PC can be HPV-mediated or not. Individuals HPV- with phimosis and chronic inflammation often develop PC. Genetic and molecular changes associated with HPV- PC leading to disturbance of the p14ARF/MDM2/p53 and/or p16INK4a/cyclin D/Rb pathways have been suggested as plausible mechanisms for the development of PC [47]. One study showed that there is silencing of the p16INK4a gene through promoter hypermethylation in 15% of cases and over-expression of the polycomb group (PcG) gene BMI-1, which targets the INK4A/ARF locus, encoding both p16INK4a and p14ARF, in 10% of cases. Another study have suggested that the inactivation of p14ARF/MDM2/p53 pathway as well as somatic mutation of the p53 gene and over-expression of MDM2 and mutation of p14ARF may lead to the development of PC [48,49].

Emerging interest regarding PC carcinogenesis is the association of oncogenic viruses co-infection. EBV is associated with several malignancies in humans and its involvement in PC is still controversial [5052]. In this study, the prevalence of EBV was 30% and co-infection with HPV was 29%. Our study differs to the one conducted in Rio de Janeiro where the prevalence of EBV in penile malignancies was 46% and co-infection with HPV was 26% [17]. In cervical cancer, EBV has been suggested as a cofactor that facilitates the integration of the HPV16 genome, contributing to the development of cancer [20,21].

The prevalence of HPV in invasive PC is approximately 45%, ranging from 30% to 75% according to the detection method, the population and type of sample analyzed [11,17,18,40,42,5355]. High-risk HPV genotype 16 was observed in 61% of HPV+ cases, reinforcing other studies observations [9,56]. HPV 18, the second most common high-risk HPV [11], was not identified in this study. Low incidence of HPV 18 in PC has also been reported in the country [17,40,42,54]. Of note, the prevalence of HPV 18 is also low in the female population of the Amazonas region [57,58]. Interestingly, in one study of the Thailand population, only 1/65 patients with PC had HPV16 but high presence of HPV18 genotype (55%) was detected [59]. This can probably be explained due to geographical distribution of HPV genotypes.

The occurrence of viral co-infection between HPV genotypes 6, 16, 42, 44/55 and EBV was observed. One patient presented EBV/HPV 6 co-infection. Similar findings, EBV/HPV 6 had been described [18] suggesting a probable viral synergism in tumor development due to their similar tropism of epithelial cells [20,21]. The association of EBV and carcinogenesis is still to be demonstrated with EBV genome or virus gene products within the tumor cell population [60]. HPV 6 is classified as low oncogenic risk and is related to condyloma [61]. However, it is a prominent feature in infections in cases of PC and has multiple co-infections with high-risk types [11,62,63].

The overexpression of p16INK4a, a surrogate sensitive marker of HPV in PC [16], still remains to correlate with prognostics [12]. Overexpression of P16INK4a was observed in 12 cases (12/26, 46%). 66% (8/12) were from patients infected with HPV 16, reinforcing the role played by HPV16 in the oncogenic process.

Four HPV negative patients showed overexpression of p16INK4a (4/12, 33%). Bleeker et al. (2009) in a systematic review, assumes that PC would be related to a pathway mediated by HPV infection and another due to different epigenetic changes in the absence of HPV and related to chronic inflammation [47]. Understanding the molecular processes involved in the onset and progression of the disease is fundamental for the prevention and treatment of this mutilating.

In this series of cases, the mortality rate during the study was 38%. Several studies tried to identify prognostic factors to manage the selection of patients at high risk for metastases in PC [6468]. HPV infections as well as co-infection with EBV and p16INK4a positivity were not predictive of survival of the patients with PC. Lymph node involvement is related to poor prognosis, with a 5-year survival of less than 40% [69,70]. In this study, only 39% of the patients with PC had lymphadenectomy.

Limitations of the study were the difficulties inherent to the non-recording of clinical and histopathological data in medical records. Many biopsy samples fixed in paraffin blocks were missing for the IHC assay for the qualitative detection of the p16INK4a, reducing the sample size. In the state of Amazonas, usually patients seek care at an advanced stage of the disease and as soon as they complete their surgical treatment (partial or total penectomy) they return to their city and there is no follow-up.

HPV vaccination has been shown to be effective for HPV-related cancers and inclusion of young in the immunization programs against HPV is well established [71,72]. In the Amazonas, the vaccination program for girls started in 2013 with the quadrivalent vaccine that protects against genotypes 6, 11, 16 and 18. In Brazil, the Ministry of Health only included young males (between 12 and 13 years old) in the vaccination HPV program in 2017. In the future, we expect that this action may reduce the incidence of PC and other HPV-related.

Conclusions

In summary, our results show that patients with HPV+ PC have in general low grade tumors. Overexpression of p16INK4a was correlated to the detection of HPV 16 DNA, reinforcing that it can be used as a marker to high-risk HPV genotype 16 infection as found in oropharyngeal cancers. EBV infection was observed in one-third of the patients with PC and the co-infection with HPV in a quarter. The knowledge of the etiology of penile cancer is far from definite. The individual role or synergisms of the known oncogenic viruses such as HPV and EBV at the onset of carcinogenic events are still not well defined. However, our data show the profile of these viral oncogenic infections and the reality of this neoplasm in individuals from the Brazilian Amazon.

Supporting information

S1 Protocol. HPV detection and genotyping method and EBV detection.

(DOCX)

S2 Protocol. Immunohistochemical for p16INK4a protein.

(DOCX)

S1 Fig. Patterns of p16 expression in penile carcinomas.

Microarray tissue block immunohistochemistry for p16INK4a (from left to right): a. absence; b. strong and diffuse cytoplasmic staining; c. Moderate and focal cytoplasmic staining; d. weak and focal cytoplasmic staining; e. absence of staining; f. strong and diffuse cytoplasmic staining.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Distribution of HPV, EBV status and p16INK4a overexpression among the patients deceased and survived with penile cancer at Amazon—Brazil.

EBV: Epstein-Barr virus; HPV: Human papillomavirus, n: Absolute frequency; +:positive; -:negative.

(DOCX)

S1 File. Data collection instrument—Penis cancer.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank the Fundação Centro de Controle de Oncologia do Estado do Amazonas (FCECON), Fundação de Medicina Tropical Doutor Heitor Vieira Dourado (FMT-HVD) and A.C. Camargo Cancer Center for the infrastructural support. The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr. Fernando Augusto Soares and Dra. Stephania Martins Bezerra (A.C. Camargo Cancer Center) who performed the Immunohistochemistry for p16INK4a, Dr. Marcel Heibel for assistance during the inclusion of patients in the study and Dra. Ana Carolina Soares de Oliveira who performed the HPV Genotyping—PapilloCheck® HPV-Screening. The authors would also like to thank the patients that participated in this study.

Data Availability

All relevant data are in the paper and in the Supporting information.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by The Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Amazonas- FAPEAM for financial support (PROGRAMA UNIVERSAL AMAZONAS N.021/2011-FAPEAM; PROGRAMA PAPAC N.020/2013 – FAPEAM; PROGRAMA PAPAC N.05/2019 – FAPEAM and PROGRAMA PRó ESTADO N.002./2008-FAPEAM). The Rede D’OR- São Luiz provided support in the form of a salary for author Isabela Werneck Cunha IW, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of this author is articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. The Genomic Health Surveillance Network: Optimization of Assistance and Research in the State of Amazonas – REGESAM is not a funder but a network of researchers in the Genomic field on the State of Amazonas.

References

  • 1.Parkin DM, Ferlay J, Curado MP, Bray F, Edwards B, et al. (2010) Fifty years of cancer incidence: CI5 I–IX. International journal of cancer 127: 2918–2927. 10.1002/ijc.25517 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Christodoulidou M, Sahdev V, Houssein S, Muneer A (2015) Epidemiology of penile cancer. Current problems in cancer 39: 126–136. 10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2015.03.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cardona CEM, García-Perdomo HA (2018) Incidence of penile cancer worldwide: systematic review and meta-analysis. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública 41: e117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Favorito LA, Nardi AC, Ronalsa M, Zequi SC, Sampaio FJ, et al. (2008) Epidemiologic study on penile cancer in Brazil. International braz j urol 34: 587–593. 10.1590/s1677-55382008000500007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.BRASIL. (2019) Ministério da saúde. Instituto Nacional de Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva. Disponível em https://mortalidade.inca.gov.br/MortalidadeWeb/ In: 09/10/2019 A, editor.
  • 6.Pow-Sang MR, Benavente V, Pow-Sang JE, Morante C, Meza L, et al. (2002) Cancer of the penis. Cancer control 9: 305–314. 10.1177/107327480200900405 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Calmon MF, Tasso Mota M, Vassallo J, Rahal P (2011) Penile carcinoma: risk factors and molecular alterations. The Scientific World Journal 11: 269–282. 10.1100/tsw.2011.24 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Schabath MB, Villa LL, Lazcano-Ponce E, Salmerón J, Quiterio M, et al. (2011) Smoking and human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the HPV in Men (HIM) study. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Miralles-Guri C, Bruni L, Cubilla A, Castellsague X, Bosch FX, et al. (2009) HPV prevalence and type distribution in penile carcinoma. J Clin Pathol. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Stratton KL, Culkin DJ (2016) A Contemporary Review of HPV and Penile Cancer. Oncology (Williston Park, NY) 30: 245–249. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Alemany L, Cubilla A, Halec G, Kasamatsu E, Quirós B, et al. (2016) Role of human papillomavirus in penile carcinomas worldwide. Eur Urol 69: 953–961. 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Olesen TB, Sand FL, Rasmussen CL, Albieri V, Toft BG, et al. (2019) Prevalence of human papillomavirus DNA and p16INK4a in penile cancer and penile intraepithelial neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The lancet oncology 20: 145–158. 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30682-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Schiffman M, Doorbar J, Wentzensen N, De Sanjosé S, Fakhry C, et al. (2016) Carcinogenic human papillomavirus infection. Nature Reviews Disease Primers 2: 16086 10.1038/nrdp.2016.86 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Spiess PE, Dhillon J, Baumgarten AS, Johnstone PA, Giuliano AR (2016) Pathophysiological basis of human papillomavirus in penile cancer: key to prevention and delivery of more effective therapies. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 66: 481–495. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chipollini J, Chaing S, Azizi M, Kidd LC, Kim P, et al. (2017) Advances in Understanding of Penile Carcinogenesis: The Search for Actionable Targets. International journal of molecular sciences 18: 1777. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Tang DH, Clark PE, Giannico G, Hameed O, Chang SS, et al. (2015) Lack of P16 ink4a Over Expression in Penile Squamous Cell Carcinoma is Associated with Recurrence after Lymph Node Dissection. J Urol 193: 519–525. 10.1016/j.juro.2014.08.120 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Afonso LA, Moyses N, Alves G, Ornellas AA, Passos MR, et al. (2012) Prevalence of human papillomavirus and Epstein-Barr virus DNA in penile cancer cases from Brazil. Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 107: 18–23. 10.1590/s0074-02762012000100003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Afonso LA, Carestiato FN, Ornellas AA, Ornellas P, Rocha WM, et al. (2017) Human papillomavirus, Epstein-Barr virus, and methylation status of p16ink4a in penile cancer. Journal of medical virology. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.de Lima MAP, Rabenhorst SHB (2006) Associação do vírus Epstein-Barr (EBV) com tumores sólidos. Revista Brasileira de Cancerologia 52: 87–96. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Szostek S, Zawilinska B, Kopec J, Kosz-Vnenchak M (2009) Herpesviruses as possible cofactors in HPV-16-related oncogenesis. Acta Biochim Pol 56: 337 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Guidry J, Scott R (2017) The interaction between human papillomavirus and other viruses. Virus research 231: 139–147. 10.1016/j.virusres.2016.11.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Saiki RK, Scharf S, Faloona F, Mullis KB, Horn GT, et al. (1985) Enzymatic amplification of b-globin genomic sequences and restriction site analysis for diagnosis of sickle cell anemia. Science 230: 1350–1354. 10.1126/science.2999980 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gravitt P, Peyton C, Alessi T, Wheeler C, Coutlee F, et al. (2000) Improved amplification of genital human papillomaviruses. Journal of clinical microbiology 38: 357–361. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Veo CA, Saad SS, Fregnani JHT, Scapulatempo-Neto C, Tsunoda AT, et al. (2015) Clinical characteristics of women diagnosed with carcinoma who tested positive for cervical and anal high-risk human papillomavirus DNA and E6 RNA. Tumor Biology 36: 5399–5405. 10.1007/s13277-015-3205-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Heard I, Cuschieri K, Geraets D, Quint W, Arbyn M (2016) Clinical and analytical performance of the PapilloCheck HPV-Screening assay using the VALGENT framework. Journal of Clinical Virology 81: 6–11. 10.1016/j.jcv.2016.05.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Markoulatos P, Georgopoulou A, Siafakas N, Plakokefalos E, Tzanakaki G, et al. (2001) Laboratory diagnosis of common herpesvirus infections of the central nervous system by a multiplex PCR assay. Journal of clinical microbiology 39: 4426–4432. 10.1128/JCM.39.12.4426-4432.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bezerra SM, Chaux A, Ball MW, Faraj SF, Munari E, et al. (2015) Human papillomavirus infection and immunohistochemical p16INK4a expression as predictors of outcome in penile squamous cell carcinomas. Hum Pathol 46: 532–540. 10.1016/j.humpath.2014.12.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Cubilla AL, Lloveras B, Alejo M, Clavero O, Chaux A, et al. (2011) Value of p16INK4a in the pathology of invasive penile squamous cell carcinomas: a report of 202 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 35: 253–261. 10.1097/PAS.0b013e318203cdba [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Moch H, Cubilla AL, Humphrey PA, Reuter VE, Ulbright TM (2016) The 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs—part A: renal, penile, and testicular tumours. Eur Urol 70: 93–105. 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.02.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Paner GP, Stadler WM, Hansel DE, Montironi R, Lin DW, et al. (2018) Updates in the eighth edition of the tumor-node-metastasis staging classification for urologic cancers. Eur Urol 73: 560–569. 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.12.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.BRASIL. (2019) Ministério da Economia. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística—IBGE. Disponível em:https://www.ibge.gov.br/cidades-e-estados/am.html Acesso em:09/10/209.
  • 32.Salvioni R, Necchi A, Piva L, Colecchia M, Nicolai N. Penile cancer; 2009. Elsevier; pp. 677–685. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Fonseca AGd, Pinto JASdA, Marques MC, Drosdoski FS, Fonseca Neto LORd (2010) Estudo epidemiológico do câncer de pênis no Estado do Pará, Brasil. Revista Pan-Amazônica de Saúde 1: 85–90.
  • 34.FIGLIUOLO G, Lima S, Costa S, Silva J, Paiva C, et al. (2015) Perfil clínico-epidemiológico associado a fatores de risco de pacientes com câncer de pênis atendidos em um Hospital de Referência Oncológica em Manaus. Vol. Revista Brasileira de Oncologia Clínica 11.
  • 35.Barros ÉNd Melo MCBd (2009) Câncer de pênis: perfil sócio-demográfico e respostas emocionais à penectomia em pacientes atendidos no Serviço de Psicologia do Hospital de Câncer de Pernambuco. Revista da SBPH 12: 99–111.
  • 36.Couto TCd Arruda RMB, Couto MCd Barros FD (2014) Epidemiological study of penile cancer in Pernambuco: experience of two reference centers. International braz j urol 40: 738–744. 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.06.04 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.de Araujo LA, De Paula AAP, de Paula HdSC, Ramos JEP, de Oliveira BR, et al. (2018) Human papillomavirus (HPV) genotype distribution in penile carcinoma: Association with clinic pathological factors. PLoS One 13: e0199557 10.1371/journal.pone.0199557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Chalya PL, Rambau PF, Masalu N, Simbila S (2015) Ten-year surgical experiences with penile cancer at a tertiary care hospital in northwestern Tanzania: a retrospective study of 236 patients. World journal of surgical oncology 13: 71 10.1186/s12957-015-0482-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Barbosa AdA Júnior, Athanázio PRF, Oliveira B (1984) Câncer do pênis: estudo da sua patologia geográfica no Estado da Bahia, Brasil. Revista de saude publica 18: 429–435. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.de Andrade Martins V, Pinho JD, Junior AALT, Nogueira LR, Silva FF, et al. (2018) P16INK4a expression in patients with penile cancer. PLoS One 13: e0205350 10.1371/journal.pone.0205350 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Mosconi AM, Roila F, Gatta G, Theodore C (2005) Cancer of the penis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 53: 165–177. 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2004.09.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.de Sousa IDB, Vidal FCB, Vidal JPCB, de Mello GCF, Nascimento MdDSB, et al. (2015) Prevalence of human papillomavirus in penile malignant tumors: viral genotyping and clinical aspects. BMC urology 15: 13 10.1186/s12894-015-0007-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Djajadiningrat RS, Horenblas S, Heideman DAM, Sanders J, de Jong J, et al. (2015) Classic and Nonclassic HLA Class I Expression in Penile Cancer and Relation to HPV Status and Clinical Outcome. Journal of Urology 193: 1245–1251. 10.1016/j.juro.2014.11.057 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Martínez-Bailón C, Mantilla-Morales A, Méndez-Matías G, Alvarado-Cabrero I, Maldonado-Rodríguez R, et al. (2019) Human papillomavirus genotypes and P16INK4A expression in squamous penile carcinoma in Mexican patients. BMC Infect Dis 19: 1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Larke NL, Thomas SL, dos Santos Silva I, Weiss HA (2011) Male circumcision and penile cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Causes & Control 22: 1097–1110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Daling JR, Madeleine MM, Johnson LG, Schwartz SM, Shera KA, et al. (2005) Penile cancer: importance of circumcision, human papillomavirus and smoking in in situ and invasive disease. International journal of cancer 116: 606–616. 10.1002/ijc.21009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Bleeker M, Heideman D, Snijders P, Horenblas S, Dillner J, et al. (2009) Penile cancer: epidemiology, pathogenesis and prevention. World J Urol 27: 141–150. 10.1007/s00345-008-0302-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Ferreux E, Lont AP, Horenblas S, Gallee MP, Raaphorst FM, et al. (2003) Evidence for at least three alternative mechanisms targeting the p16INK4A/cyclin D/Rb pathway in penile carcinoma, one of which is mediated by high-risk human papillomavirus. The Journal of Pathology: A Journal of the Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland 201: 109–118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Soufir N, Queille S, Liboutet M, Thibaudeau O, Bachelier F, et al. (2007) Inactivation of the CDKN2A and the p53 tumour suppressor genes in external genital carcinomas and their precursors. British Journal of Dermatology 156: 448–453. 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2006.07604.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Young LS, Murray PG (2003) Epstein-Barr virus and oncogenesis: from latent genes to tumours. Oncogene 22: 5108 10.1038/sj.onc.1206556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Lam KY, Chan AC, Chan KW, Leung ML, Srivastava G (1995) Absence of Epstein–Barr virus in penile carcinoma. A study of 42 cases using in situ hybridization. Cancer 76: 658–660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Alves G, Macrini CMT, de Souza Nascimento P, Morais JC, Ornellas AA (2004) Detection and expression of Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) DNA in tissues from penile tumors in Brazil. Cancer Lett 215: 79–82. 10.1016/j.canlet.2004.04.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Levi JE, Rahal P, Sarkis AS, Villa L (1998) Human papillomavirus DNA and p53 status in penile carcinomas. Int J Cancer 76: 779–783. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Scheiner MA, Campos MM, Ornellas AA, Chin EW, Ornellas MH, et al. (2008) Human papillomavirus and penile cancers in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: HPV typing and clinical features. International braz j urol 34: 467–476. 10.1590/s1677-55382008000400009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Hernandez BY, Goodman MT, Unger ER, Steinau M, Powers A, et al. (2014) Human papillomavirus genotype prevalence in invasive penile cancers from a registry-based United States population. Frontiers in oncology 4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Backes DM, Kurman RJ, Pimenta JM, Smith JS (2009) Systematic review of human papillomavirus prevalence in invasive penile cancer. Cancer Causes & Control 20: 449–457. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.SALES L (2015) Caracterização da infecção por hpv em mulheres que realizam exame de rastreio do câncer do colo do útero do município de Manaus. Amazonas: Universidade Federal do Amazonas.
  • 58.Torres KL, Mariño JM, Rocha DAP, de Mello MB, de Melo Farah HH, et al. (2018) Self-sampling coupled to the detection of HPV 16 and 18 E6 protein: A promising option for detection of cervical malignancies in remote areas. PLoS One 13: e0201262 10.1371/journal.pone.0201262 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Senba M, Kumatori A, Fujita S, Jutavijittum P, Yousukh A, et al. (2006) The prevalence of human papillomavirus genotypes in penile cancers from northern Thailand. Journal of medical virology 78: 1341–1346. 10.1002/jmv.20703 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Young LS, Murray PG (2003) Epstein-Barr virus and oncogenesis: from latent genes to tumours. Oncogene 22: 5108–5121. 10.1038/sj.onc.1206556 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Muñoz N, Bosch FX, de Sanjosé S, Herrero R, Castellsagué X, et al. (2003) Epidemiologic classification of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2003: 518–527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Rubin MA, Kleter B, Zhou M, Ayala G, Cubilla AL, et al. (2001) Detection and typing of human papillomavirus DNA in penile carcinoma: evidence for multiple independent pathways of penile carcinogenesis. Am J Pathol 159: 1211–1218. 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)62506-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Dorfman S, Cavazza M, Cardozo J (2006) Penile cancer associated with so-called low-risk human papilloma virus. Report of five cases from rural Venezuela. Tropical doctor 36: 232–233. 10.1258/004947506778604896 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Bezerra SM, Chaux A, Ball MW, Faraj SF, Munari E, et al. (2015) Human papillomavirus infection and immunohistochemicat p16(INK4a) expression as predictors of outcome in penile squamous cell carcinomas. Human Pathology 46: 532–540. 10.1016/j.humpath.2014.12.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Zargar-Shoshtari K, Spiess PE, Berglund AE, Sharma P, Powsang JM, et al. (2016) Clinical significance of p53 and p16ink4a status in a contemporary North American Penile Carcinoma Cohort. Clinical genitourinary cancer 14: 346–351. 10.1016/j.clgc.2015.12.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Bethune G, Campbell J, Rocker A, Bell D, Rendon R, et al. (2012) Clinical and pathologic factors of prognostic significance in penile squamous cell carcinoma in a North American population. Urology 79: 1092–1097. 10.1016/j.urology.2011.12.048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Ferrandiz-Pulido C, Hernandez-Losa J, Masferrer E, Vivancos A, Somoza R, et al. (2015) Identification of somatic gene mutations in penile squamous cell carcinoma. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 54: 629–637. 10.1002/gcc.22274 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Bezerra AL, Lopes A, Santiago GH, Ribeiro KC, Latorre MR, et al. (2001) Human papillomavirus as a prognostic factor in carcinoma of the penis: analysis of 82 patients treated with amputation and bilateral lymphadenectomy. Cancer 91: 2315–2321. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Micali G, Nasca MR, Innocenzi D, Schwartz RA (2006) Penile cancer. J Am Acad Dermatol 54: 369–391; quiz 391–364. 10.1016/j.jaad.2005.05.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Reddy JP, Pettaway CA, Levy LB, Pagliaro LC, Tamboli P, et al. (2017) Factors associated with regional recurrence after lymph node dissection for penile squamous cell carcinoma. Bju international 119: 591–597. 10.1111/bju.13686 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Prue G, Lawler M, Baker P, Warnakulasuriya S (2017) Human papillomavirus (HPV): making the case for ‘Immunisation for All’. Oral diseases 23: 726–730. 10.1111/odi.12562 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Michels KB, zur Hausen H (2009) HPV vaccine for all. The Lancet 374: 268–270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Marc O Siegel

14 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-35033

HIGH PREVALENCE OF HPV WITH OVEREXPRESSION OF p16 INK4A PROTEIN AND CO-INFECTION WITH EBV IN PENILE CANCER – A SERIES OF CASES FROM BRAZIL AMAZON

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Martins,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 28 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marc O. Siegel, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses.

For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3. To comply with PLOS ONE submission guidelines, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding your statistical analyses.

For more information on PLOS ONE's expectations for statistical reporting, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines.#loc-statistical-reporting.

4. We ask that you please remove citations for unavailable and unpublished work, including manuscripts that have been submitted but not yet accepted (e.g., “unpublished work,” “data not shown”). Instead, include those data as supplementary material or deposit the data in a publicly available database.

5. In your Methods section, you have indicated that the performed immunohistochemical analysis. At this time, we ask that you please provide the representative microscopy images of the immunohistochemical stainings as a separate Figure in your manuscript.

6. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

'The author(s) received specific funding for this work.

1. Kátia Luz Torres - PROGRAMA UNIVERSAL AMAZONAS N.021/2011-FUNDAÇÃO DE AMPARO À PESQUISA DO ESTADO DO AMAZONAS – FAPEAM

2. Kátia Luz Torres - PROGRAMA PAPAC N.020/2013 - FUNDAÇÃO DE AMPARO À PESQUISA DO ESTADO DO AMAZONAS – FAPEAM'

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company:

Genomic Health Surveillance Network and Rede D’OR- São Luiz.

a. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

b. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

c. Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors present tumor tissue analyzes from 47 patients with penile cancer. Samples were analyzed for the presence of HPV and EBV DNA by PCR. In addition p16 INK4a expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. The results roughly agree with those in the world literature. In the second sentence of the introduction the authors state: In Brazil, PC accounts for approximately 2.1% of all tumors in men being the highest incidence reported in the world (2.9-6.8 cases per 100,000 men-years). In the cited article, Brazil appears in the first place in the ranking of Latin America being surpassed in the world by Romania and Uganda. The authors presented a survival curve showing a better prognosis for Ebv- patients when compared to Ebv +. I would like they comment on why this result.

Reviewer #2: The present study is about penile cancer and oncogenic viruses HPV and EBV and their relationship with clinical and pathological characteristics. The work is important because penile carcinoma is an uncommon neoplasm, although in some regions of the world, such as Brazil, its incidence is higher, and because of the importance of exploring another possible etiological or risk factor, that is, EBV. HPV in penile cancer has been recognized in almost 50% of the cases. In contrast, the presence and biological and clinical relevance of EBV in penile cancer have not been sufficiently studied. However, it is necessary to review the scope of the findings and analyze the concomitant presence of both viruses and the clinical and pathological characteristics of the patients, in order to define the possible relationship of EBV in penile cancer. In this sense, it is necessary to consider the following observations.

Title

“HIGH PREVALENCE OF HPV WITH OVEREXPRESSION OF p16 INK4A PROTEIN AND CO-INFECTION WITH EBV IN PENILE CANCER – A SERIES OF CASES FROM BRAZIL AMAZON”. The title suggests that the authors found a higher prevalence of HPV than the one reported worldwide and that there is a concomitant presence of EBV infection in HPV positive cases. However, the data obtained does not reflect this. I suggest that the title should be modified to reflect in the best way the scope of the study and the results obtained.

Abstract

Line 27. It reads “Epstein Baar”; it should read “Epstein-Barr”.

Line 57. It reads “Con-infection”; it should read “co-infection”.

The conclusion states that “p16 INK4a positivity presented a high correlation to HPV 16 DNA detection, reinforcing its use as a surrogate marker for HPV-driven cancers.” This is not a novel finding. Thus, it is necessary to rewrite the conclusion in the abstract and the text after analyzing the group of concomitant HPV and EBV infection and EBV alone.

Introduction

Line 56-58. It is necessary to update the references about epidemiological data of penile carcinoma, since the only reference is from 2010, and there are recent works on this issue.

Line 69-70. Concerning HPV prevalence in penile carcinoma, it is necessary to complement and or compare the most recent data worldwide (Bruni 2017; Alemany 2016; Olesen 2019).

Line 80-86. It is important to describe the oncogenic role of EBV in cancer, as currently known, and the cell types affected by such viruses. The relationship between EBV and HPV in carcinogenesis is described in various papers; one of them is a review by Guidry and Scott (doi:10.1016/j.virusres.2016.11.002.). It is necessary to expand the references about the oncogenic role of EBV in epithelial carcinogenesis.

Line 87-88. It is necessary to describe in a better way the rationale or the relevance of the work, emphasizing the study of EBV and HPV, and the few studies specifically in penile carcinoma.

Materials and Methods

Line 112-113. Specify the size of the b-globin product.

Line 126. What is the reason to do specific E7 HPV 16 and 18? The results and discussion about this detection are not mentioned. Besides, the genotyping by papillocheck test was used. The rationale to detect E7 is not indicated.

Line 171. It is necessary to indicate why only 21/47 samples were analyzed.

Results

Tables 1 and 2 could be merged.

Line 210-211. In patients with EBV and HPV co-infection, the relationship with p16 overexpression should be described.

Table 3. Include the information about the expression of p16.

Line 215-216. It would be important to evaluate the presence of HPV newly (with a different method, if possible) in the positive cases of p16, which were initially identified as negative for HPV DNA.

Line 219-220. Smoking and HPV presence are relatively excluding factors, at least in HNCSS. The relationship between overexpression of p16 and smoking was identified; however, it was not so with the presence of HPV. The analysis was made with all genotypes identified (low and high risk). What is the relationship between smoking and high-risk HPV presence?

Line 223-228. It is necessary to describe the survival analysis of the group with co-infection of HPV and EBV since the analysis was only made individually, and an important issue (since the title of the study) is the co-infection of EBV and HPV. The result should be discussed.

Table 4. This table could be simplified by removing the percentages (leaving the frequencies), and adding the EBV presence in the header row and respective analysis.

Discussion

Line 251. The metastasis analysis should be extended. This issue has been addressed in head and neck carcinomas HPV negative versus positive, and also in nasopharyngeal carcinomas EBV positive, as well as prognosis factors associated.

Line 252-253. The result about HPV in young men contrasts with a recent article (doi.org/10.1186/s12879-019-4696-6), reporting that at least 50% of men under 45 years have HPV. It is important to extend the discussion about the characteristics of penile cancer in young men and contrast the results with other reports.

Line 258. Change the capital letters in the author's name cited.

Line 268. According to the data in Table 4, tumor grade III is associated with HPV presence. Improve the description of this finding and mention the concordance with previous works.

Line 275-276. How could you explain the relationship between phimosis and overexpression of p16?

Line 279-285. The relationship between EBV and HPV should be expanded. Although the relation between EBV and HPV in penile cancer is incipient, the relationship is described in another HPV-related cancer. Several articles have described the association between expression of p16 and EBV in other neoplasms (Doi: 10.1002/hed.24258. doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.06.1473. doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2018.00113), and this is not described in the discussion.

Line 289-290. The absence of HPV 18 in penile carcinoma is consistent with other works. (doi.org/10.1186/s12879-019-4696-6), and in contrast with the findings in other regions (DOI: 10.1002/jmv.20703).

Line 295. Describe more broadly the possible mechanisms for the synergistic effect of HPV 6 and EBV.

Line 302-303. What other genotypes (different to HPV 16) were present in the p16 positives cases?

Line 304. Change the capital letters of the author's name cited.

Line 313, Figure 2. The correlation between p16 overexpression and survival has been addressed in other neoplasms. The authors should review the impact of the clinical stage on survival. Did you consider the local and advanced stages for survival analysis?

Finally, the authors should discuss the limitations of the study. For example, the number of p16 samples analyzed, if the size (3-5 mm) of samples analyzed was adequate for the detection of the viruses, p16, and pathological characteristics.

One issue not mentioned is the presence of HPV without relation to penile carcinogenesis. Therefore, it is important to describe the p16 overexpression as a subrogate biomarker of carcinogenesis induced by high-risk HPV. The analysis of EBV dependent and independent of HPV should be extended and, consequently, the discussion.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 May 6;15(5):e0232474. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232474.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


19 Mar 2020

Reply to reviewers

Reviewer #1:

The authors present tumor tissue analyzes from 47 patients with penile cancer. Samples were analyzed for the presence of HPV and EBV DNA by PCR. In addition, p16 INK4a expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. The results roughly agree with those in the world literature. In the second sentence of the introduction the authors state: In Brazil, PC accounts for approximately 2.1% of all tumors in men being the highest incidence reported in the world (2.9-6.8 cases per 100,000 men-years). In the cited article, Brazil appears in the first place in the ranking of Latin America being surpassed in the world by Romania and Uganda.

We agree and have corrected in the texts. (Line 57-58)

The authors presented a survival curve showing a better prognosis for Ebv- patients when compared to Ebv +. I would like they comment on why this result.

We agree with the reviewer that there is a trend due to the sudden drop of the survival curve. However, the comparison showed no difference (Plog rank = 0.106).

Reply to reviewers

Reviewer #2:

The present study is about penile cancer and oncogenic viruses HPV and EBV and their relationship with clinical and pathological characteristics. The work is important because penile carcinoma is an uncommon neoplasm, although in some regions of the world, such as Brazil, its incidence is higher, and because of the importance of exploring another possible etiological or risk factor, that is, EBV. HPV in penile cancer has been recognized in almost 50% of the cases. In contrast, the presence and biological and clinical relevance of EBV in penile cancer have not been sufficiently studied. However, it is necessary to review the scope of the findings and analyze the concomitant presence of both viruses and the clinical and pathological characteristics of the patients, in order to define the possible relationship of EBV in penile cancer. In this sense, it is necessary to consider the following observations.

Title

“HIGH PREVALENCE OF HPV WITH OVEREXPRESSION OF p16 INK4A PROTEIN AND CO-INFECTION WITH EBV IN PENILE CANCER – A SERIES OF CASES FROM BRAZIL AMAZON”. The title suggests that the authors found a higher prevalence of HPV than the one reported worldwide and that there is a concomitant presence of EBV infection in HPV positive cases. However, the data obtained does not reflect this. I suggest that the title should be modified to reflect in the best way the scope of the study and the results obtained.

We agree and have rewritten the title.

PRESENCE OF HPV WITH OVEREXPRESSION OF p16 INK4A PROTEIN AND EBV INFECTION IN PENILE CANCER – A SERIES OF CASES FROM BRAZIL AMAZON

Abstract

Line 27. It reads “Epstein Baar”; it should read “Epstein-Barr”.

We have corrected in the texts. (Line 29)

Line 57. It reads “Con-infection”; it should read “co-infection”.

We have corrected in the texts. (Line 51-52)

The conclusion states that “p16 INK4a positivity presented a high correlation to HPV 16 DNA detection, reinforcing its use as a surrogate marker for HPV-driven cancers.” This is not a novel finding. Thus, it is necessary to rewrite the conclusion in the abstract and the text after analyzing the group of concomitant HPV and EBV infection and EBV alone.

We totally agree and have brought the necessary changes. (Line 51-52)

Introduction

Line 56-58. It is necessary to update the references about epidemiological data of penile carcinoma, since the only reference is from 2010, and there are recent works on this issue.

We have brought the necessary changes. (Line 55-57)

Line 69-70. Concerning HPV prevalence in penile carcinoma, it is necessary to complement and or compare the most recent data worldwide (Bruni 2017; Alemany 2016; Olesen 2019).

We have brought the necessary changes. (Line 69-71)

Line 80-86. It is important to describe the oncogenic role of EBV in cancer, as currently known, and the cell types affected by such viruses. The relationship between EBV and HPV in carcinogenesis is described in various papers; one of them is a review by Guidry and Scott (doi:10.1016/j.virusres.2016.11.002.). It is necessary to expand the references about the oncogenic role of EBV in epithelial carcinogenesis.

We have corrected accordingly. (Line 81-88)

Line 87-88. It is necessary to describe in a better way the rationale or the relevance of the work, emphasizing the study of EBV and HPV, and the few studies specifically in penile carcinoma.

We totally agree and have brought the necessary changes. (Line 89-90)

Materials and Methods

Line 112-113. Specify the size of the b-globin product.

We have provided in the text. (Line 115-117)

Line 126. What is the reason to do specific E7 HPV 16 and 18? The results and discussion about this detection are not mentioned. Besides, the genotyping by PapilloCheck test was used. The rationale to detect E7 is not indicated.

Reply

As PapilloCheck is a very expensive test, we have chosen to primarily screen the presence of HPV followed by typing specifically for HPV16 and HPV18. All of the samples that were negative for HPV16 and HPV18 were screen by PapilloCheck test to reduce the cost of typing.

Line 171. It is necessary to indicate why only 21/47 samples were analyzed.

Reply

We believe that there is misunderstanding here. We did already explain in the text. 21 samples were not available for pre-analytical analysis due to poor quality keeping of the samples.

Results

Tables 1 and 2 could be merged.

We do agree but merging both tables 1 and 2 will be heavy and confusing.

Line 210-211. In patients with EBV and HPV co-infection, the relationship with p16 overexpression should be described.

We have provided in the text. (Line 223-224)

Table 3. Include the information about the expression of p16.

Reply

As we did for only 26 samples, we did not include in the Table 3 to avoid confusion, but we describe in text.

Line 215-216. It would be important to evaluate the presence of HPV newly (with a different method, if possible) in the positive cases of p16, which were initially identified as negative for HPV DNA.

Reply

The four samples that were positive for p16 and negative for HPV were again tested for the presence of HPV16 and HPV18 by real-time PCR and continued to be negative.

Line 219-220. Smoking and HPV presence are relatively excluding factors, at least in HNCSS. The relationship between overexpression of p16 and smoking was identified; however, it was not so with the presence of HPV. The analysis was made with all genotypes identified (low and high risk). What is the relationship between smoking and high-risk HPV presence?

Reply

We have rewritten in the result section to avoid confusion. There was no relationship between smoking and high-risk HPV presence. As it can be seen that the driving force for the presence of p16 is mostly dependent on the presence of HPV and independent of the smoking status. (Line 232-238)

Line 223-228. It is necessary to describe the survival analysis of the group with co-infection of HPV and EBV since the analysis was only made individually, and an important issue (since the title of the study) is the co-infection of EBV and HPV. The result should be discussed.

Thank you for pointing this lack. We have performed the analysis and is shown in Figure 2D. The comparison showed no difference P log rank=0.318. We also included a S1 Table showing the infection status of the deceased and survived patients. (Line 240-241)

Table 4. This table could be simplified by removing the percentages (leaving the frequencies) and adding the EBV presence in the header row and respective analysis.

We have brought the necessary changes.

Discussion

Line 251. The metastasis analysis should be extended. This issue has been addressed in head and neck carcinomas HPV negative versus positive, and also in nasopharyngeal carcinomas EBV positive, as well as prognosis factors associated.

Reply

As our study is only focused on penile cancer, we did not compare with other types of cancers as we believe that the developing mechanisms could be different. For this reason, we did not extend the discussion.

Line 252-253. The result about HPV in young men contrasts with a recent article (doi.org/10.1186/s12879-019-4696-6), reporting that at least 50% of men under 45 years have HPV. It is important to extend the discussion about the characteristics of penile cancer in young men and contrast the results with other reports.

Reply

We agree to disagree because of the sample size which makes it difficult to compare. In the study stated, there were only 8 patients under 45 years old and four of them were positive for HPV. In our study we had 13 patients under 45 years old and five (38%) were positive for HPV.

Line 258. Change the capital letters in the author's name cited.

We have corrected in the texts. (Line 259)

Line 268. According to the data in Table 4, tumor grade III is associated with HPV presence. Improve the description of this finding and mention the concordance with previous works.

We have added one more reference. (Line 292)

Line 275-276. How could you explain the relationship between phimosis and overexpression of p16?

We have provided in the discussion. (Line 300-312)

Line 279-285. The relationship between EBV and HPV should be expanded. Although the relation between EBV and HPV in penile cancer is incipient, the relationship is described in another HPV-related cancer. Several articles have described the association between expression of p16 and EBV in other neoplasms (Doi: 10.1002/hed.24258. doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.06.1473. doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2018.00113), and this is not described in the discussion.

Reply

As cited previously (Answer Line 252). We have focus mainly on penile cancer. Considering that in other studies with penile cancer the HPV and EBV status were not predictive of outcome and we believe that the developing mechanisms could be different for another cancer.

Line 289-290. The absence of HPV 18 in penile carcinoma is consistent with other works. (doi.org/10.1186/s12879-019-4696-6), and in contrast with the findings in other regions (DOI: 10.1002/jmv.20703).

We have included in the text. (Line 326-329)

Line 295. Describe more broadly the possible mechanisms for the synergistic effect of HPV 6 and EBV.

We included in the text. (Line 333)

Line 302-303. What other genotypes (different to HPV 16) were present in the p16 positives cases?

We have described in the result section. (Line 229-229)

Line 304. Change the capital letters of the author's name cited.

We have corrected in the texts. (Line 342)

Line 313, Figure 2. The correlation between p16 overexpression and survival has been addressed in other neoplasms. The authors should review the impact of the clinical stage on survival. Did you consider the local and advanced stages for survival analysis?

Reply

We have included in the text. However, we did stratify the patients according to the local and advanced stages as our sample size is small. And stratification will further reduce the sample and will not have any power to detect any difference according to our statistician. (Line 350-351)

Finally, the authors should discuss the limitations of the study. For example, the number of p16 samples analyzed, if the size (3-5 mm) of samples analyzed was adequate for the detection of the viruses, p16, and pathological characteristics.

We have described in the discussion section. And we also described in the materials and methods section and Supporting Information (S2 PROTOCOL - Immunohistochemistry for p16INK4a).

One issue not mentioned is the presence of HPV without relation to penile carcinogenesis. Therefore, it is important to describe the p16 overexpression as a surrogate biomarker of carcinogenesis induced by high-risk HPV. The analysis of EBV dependent and independent of HPV should be extended and, consequently, the discussion.

We have described in the discussion section.

Sincerely yours,

Yours faithfully,

Valquiria do Carmo Alves Martins

On behalf of all authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: response_to_reviewers_AlvesVCR.docx

Decision Letter 1

Marc O Siegel

16 Apr 2020

PRESENCE OF HPV WITH OVEREXPRESSION OF p16 INK4A PROTEIN AND EBV INFECTION IN PENILE CANCER – A SERIES OF CASES FROM BRAZIL AMAZON

PONE-D-19-35033R1

Dear Dr. Martins,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Marc O. Siegel, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors made the changes that I requested. The manuscript deserves to be published due to the rarity of the tumor studied. In addition, it is important to have a sample of the population of Amazonas in northern Brazil. Mainly because it includes minority groups such as indigenous people.

Reviewer #2: The authors have corrected and incorporated most of the previous suggestions and they have answered the questions. However, it is still necessary to correct some edition errors.

Line 29. It reads “Epstein Baar”; it should read “Epstein-Barr”

Lines 251-259 and page 13. The authors should check and make sure that the section and order of the footnotes of the figures are correct and complete.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Marc O Siegel

24 Apr 2020

PONE-D-19-35033R1

PRESENCE OF HPV WITH OVEREXPRESSION OF p16 INK4A PROTEIN AND EBV INFECTION IN PENILE CANCER – A SERIES OF CASES FROM BRAZIL AMAZON

Dear Dr. Martins:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Marc O. Siegel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Protocol. HPV detection and genotyping method and EBV detection.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Protocol. Immunohistochemical for p16INK4a protein.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Fig. Patterns of p16 expression in penile carcinomas.

    Microarray tissue block immunohistochemistry for p16INK4a (from left to right): a. absence; b. strong and diffuse cytoplasmic staining; c. Moderate and focal cytoplasmic staining; d. weak and focal cytoplasmic staining; e. absence of staining; f. strong and diffuse cytoplasmic staining.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Distribution of HPV, EBV status and p16INK4a overexpression among the patients deceased and survived with penile cancer at Amazon—Brazil.

    EBV: Epstein-Barr virus; HPV: Human papillomavirus, n: Absolute frequency; +:positive; -:negative.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File. Data collection instrument—Penis cancer.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response_to_reviewers_AlvesVCR.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are in the paper and in the Supporting information.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES