| 5. |
- Mehanna, Hisham, et al.
(författare)
-
Prognostic implications of p16 and HPV discordance in oropharyngeal cancer (HNCIG-EPIC-OPC) : a multicentre, multinational, individual patient data analysis
- 2023
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 1470-2045 .- 1474-5488. ; 24:3, s. 239-251
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: p16(INK4a) (p16) immunohistochemistry is the most widely used biomarker assay for inferring HPV causation in oropharyngeal cancer in clinical and trial settings. However, discordance exists between p16 and HPV DNA or RNA status in some patients with oropharyngeal cancer. We aimed to clearly quantify the extent of discordance, and its prognostic implications.Methods: In this multicentre, multinational individual patient data analysis, we did a literature search in PubMed and Cochrane database for systematic reviews and original studies published in English between Jan 1, 1970, and Sept 30, 2022. We included retrospective series and prospective cohorts of consecutively recruited patients previously analysed in individual studies with minimum cohort size of 100 patients with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx. Patient inclusion criteria were diagnosis with a primary squamous cell carcinoma of oropharyngeal cancer; data on p16 immunohistochemistry and on HPV testing; information on age, sex, tobacco, and alcohol use; staging by TNM 7th edition; information on treatments received; and data on clinical outcomes and follow-up (date of last follow-up if alive, date of recurrence or metastasis, and date and cause of death). There were no limits on age or performance status. The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients of the overall cohort who showed the different p16 and HPV result combinations, as well as 5-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival. Patients with recurrent or metastatic disease or who were treated palliatively were excluded from overall survival and disease-free survival analyses. Multivariable analysis models were used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for different p16 and HPV testing methods for overall survival, adjusted for prespecified confounding factors.Findings: Our search returned 13 eligible studies that provided individual data for 13 cohorts of patients with oropharyngeal cancer from the UK, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Spain. 7895 patients with oropharyngeal cancer were assessed for eligibility. 241 were excluded before analysis, and 7654 were eligible for p16 and HPV analysis. 5714 (74middot7%) of 7654 patients were male and 1940 (25middot3%) were female. Ethnicity data were not reported. 3805 patients were p16-positive, 415 (10middot9%) of whom were HPV-negative. This proportion differed significantly by geographical region and was highest in the areas with lowest HPV-attributable fractions (r=-0middot744, p=0middot0035). The proportion of patients with p16+/HPV- oropharyngeal cancer was highest in subsites outside the tonsil and base of tongue (29middot7% vs 9middot0%, p<0middot0001). 5-year overall survival was 81middot1% (95% CI 79middot5-82middot7) for p16+/HPV+, 40middot4% (38middot6-42middot4) for p16-/HPV-, 53middot2% (46middot6-60middot8) for p16-/HPV+, and 54middot7% (49middot2-60middot9) for p16+/HPV-. 5-year disease-free survival was 84middot3% (95% CI 82middot9-85middot7) for p16+/HPV+, 60middot8% (58middot8-62middot9) for p16-/HPV-; 71middot1% (64middot7-78middot2) for p16-/HPV+, and 67middot9% (62middot5-73middot7) for p16+/HPV-. Results were similar across all European sub-regions, but there were insufficient numbers of discordant patients from North America to draw conclusions in this cohort.Interpretation: Patients with discordant oropharyngeal cancer (p16-/HPV+ or p16+/HPV-) had a significantly worse prognosis than patients with p16+/HPV+ oropharyngeal cancer, and a significantly better prognosis than patients with p16-/HPV- oropharyngeal cancer. Along with routine p16 immunohistochemistry, HPV testing should be mandated for clinical trials for all patients (or at least following a positive p16 test), and is recommended where HPV status might influence patient care, especially in areas with low HPV-attributable fractions.
|
|
| 6. |
- Terzidis, Emmanouil, 1994, et al.
(författare)
-
Tumor volume definitions in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma - Comparing PET/MRI and histopathology
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Radiotherapy and Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0167-8140. ; 180
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and purpose: In cancer treatment precise definition of the tumor volume is essential, but despite development in imaging modalities, this remains a challenge. Here, pathological tumor volumes from the surgical specimens were obtained and compared to tumor volumes defined from modern PET/ MRI hybrid imaging. The purpose is to evaluate mismatch between the volumes defined from imaging and pathology was estimated and potential clinical impact.Methods and Materials: Twenty-five patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma were scanned on an integrated PET/MRI system prior to surgery. Three gross tumor volumes (GTVs) from the primary tumor site were delineated defined from MRI (GTVMRI), PET (GTVPET) and one by utilizing both anatomical images and clinical information (GTVONCO). Twenty-five primary tumor specimens were extracted en bloc, scanned with PET/MRI and co-registered to the patient images. Each specimen was sectioned in blocks, sliced and stained with haematoxylin and eosin. All slices were digitalized and tumor delineated by a head and neck pathologist. The pathological tumor areas in all slices were interpolated yielding a pathological 3D tumor volume (GTVPATO). GTVPATO was compared with the imaging GTV's and potential mismatch was estimated.Results: Thirteen patients were included. The mean volume of GTVONCO was larger than the GTV's defined from PET or MRI. The mean mismatch of the GTVPATO compared to the GTVPET, GTVMRI and GTVONCO was 31.9 %, 54.5 % and 27.9 % respectively, and the entire GTVPATO was only fully encompassed in GTVONCO in 1 of 13 patients. However, after the addition of a clinical 5 mm margin the GTVPATO was fully encompassed in GTVONCO in 11 out of 13 patients.Conclusions: Despite modern hybrid imaging modalities, a mismatch between imaging and pathological defined tumor volumes was observed in all patients. A 5 mm clinical margin was sufficient to ensure inclusion of the entire pathological volume in 11 out of 13 patients.(c) 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Radiotherapy and Oncology 180 (2023) 1-8 This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
|
|
