| 1. |
- Anantharaman, Devasena, et al.
(författare)
-
Combined effects of smoking and HPV16 in oropharyngeal cancer
- 2016
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Epidemiology. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0300-5771 .- 1464-3685. ; 45:3, s. 752-761
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Although smoking and HPV infection are recognized as important risk factors for oropharyngeal cancer, how their joint exposure impacts on oropharyngeal cancer risk is unclear. Specifically, whether smoking confers any additional risk to HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer is not understood.Methods: Using HPV serology as a marker of HPV-related cancer, we examined the interaction between smoking and HPV16 in 459 oropharyngeal (and 1445 oral cavity and laryngeal) cancer patients and 3024 control participants from two large European multicentre studies. Odds ratios and credible intervals [CrI], adjusted for potential confounders, were estimated using Bayesian logistic regression.Results: Both smoking [odds ratio (OR [CrI]: 6.82 [4.52, 10.29]) and HPV seropositivity (OR [CrI]: 235.69 [99.95, 555.74]) were independently associated with oropharyngeal cancer. The joint association of smoking and HPV seropositivity was consistent with that expected on the additive scale (synergy index [CrI]: 1.32 [0.51, 3.45]), suggesting they act as independent risk factors for oropharyngeal cancer.Conclusions: Smoking was consistently associated with increase in oropharyngeal cancer risk in models stratified by HPV16 seropositivity. In addition, we report that the prevalence of oropharyngeal cancer increases with smoking for both HPV16-positive and HPV16-negative persons. The impact of smoking on HPV16-positive oropharyngeal cancer highlights the continued need for smoking cessation programmes for primary prevention of head and neck cancer.
|
|
| 2. |
- Kjaerheim, Kristina, et al.
(författare)
-
Absence of SV40 antibodies or DNA fragments in prediagnostic mesothelioma serum samples
- 2007
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Cancer. - : Wiley. - 0020-7136 .- 1097-0215. ; 120:11, s. 2459-2465
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The rhesus monkey virus Simian Virus 40 (SV40) is a member of the polyomavirus family. It was introduced inadvertently to human populations through contaminated polio vaccine during the years 1956-1963, can induce experimental tumors in animals and transform human cells in culture. SV40 DNA has been identified in mesothelioma and other human tumors in some but not all studies. We tested prediagnostic sera from 49 mesothelioma cases and 147 matched controls for antibodies against the viral capsid protein VP1 and the large T antigen of SV40 and of the closely related human polyomaviruses BK and JC, and for SV40 DNA. Cases and controls were identified among donors to the Janus Serum Bank, which was linked to the Cancer Registry of Norway. Antibodies were analyzed by recently developed multiplex serology based on recombinantly expressed fusions of glutathione-S transferase with viral proteins as antigens combined with fluorescent bead technology. BKV and JCV specific antibodies cross- reactive with SV40 were preabsorbed with the respective VP1 proteins. Sera showing SV40 reactivity after preabsorption with BKV and JCV VP1 were further analyzed in SV40 neutralization assays. SV40 DNA was analyzed by SV40 specific polymerase chain reactions. The odds ratio for being a case when tested positive for SV40 VP1 in the antibody capture assay was 1.5 (95% CI 0.6-3.7) and 2.0 (95% CI 0.6-7.0) when only strongly reactive sera where counted as positive. Although some sera could neutralize SV40, preabsorption with BKV and JCV VP1 showed for all such sera that this neutralizing activity was due to cross-reacting antibodies and did not represent truly SV40-specific antibodies. No viral DNA was found in the sera. No significant association between SV40 antibody response in prediagnostic sera and risk of mesothelioma was seen.
|
|
| 3. |
- Sandeck, Helmut P., et al.
(författare)
-
Re-evaluation of histological diagnoses of malignant mesothelioma by immunohistochemistry
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Diagnostic Pathology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1746-1596. ; 5, s. 47-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: In order to provide reliable tissue material for malignant mesothelioma (MM) studies, we re-evaluated biopsies and autopsy material from 61 patients with a diagnosis of MM from the period of 1980-2002. Methods: Basic positive (Calretinin, EMA, Podoplanin, Mesothelin) and negative (CEA, Ber-Ep4) immunohistochemical (IHC) marker reactions were determined. If needed, more markers were used. Histological diagnoses were made by three pathologists. Survival data were calculated. Results: 49 cases (80%) were considered being MM by a high degree of likelihood, five more cases possible MM. Of the remaining seven cases, three were diagnosed as adenocarcinoma, three as pleomorphic lung carcinoma, in one peritoneal case a clear entity diagnosis could not be given. One of the possible MM cases and two of the lung carcinoma cases had this already as primary diagnoses, but were registered as MM. With a sensitivity of 100%, Calretinin and CEA were the most reliable single markers. The amount of MM cells with positive immunoreactivity (IR) for Podoplanin and Mesothelin showed most reliable inverse relation to the degree of atypia. In the confirmed MM cases, there had been applied either no IHC or between one and 18 markers. The cases not confirmed by us had either lacked IHC (n = 1), non-specific markers were used (n = 4), IR was different (n = 1), or specific markers had not shown positive IR in the right part of the tumour cells (n = 3). 46 of the 49 confirmed and three of the not confirmed cases had been diagnosed by us as most likely MM before IHC was carried out. Conclusions: In order to use archival tissue material with an earlier MM diagnosis for studies, histopathological re-evaluation is important. In possible sarcomatous MM cases without any positive IR for positive MM markers, radiology and clinical picture are essential parts of diagnostics. IHC based on a panel of two positive and two negative MM markers has to be adapted to the differential diagnostic needs in each single case. New diagnostic tools and techniques are desirable for cases where IHC and other established methods cannot provide a clear entity diagnosis, and in order to improve MM treatment.
|
|
