Genetic signatures of HPV-related and unrelated oropharyngeal carcinoma and their prognostic implications

JP Klussmann, JJ Mooren, M Lehnen… - Clinical Cancer …, 2009 - AACR
JP Klussmann, JJ Mooren, M Lehnen, SMH Claessen, M Stenner, CU Huebbers
Clinical Cancer Research, 2009AACR
Purpose: Patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)-containing oropharyngeal squamous
cell carcinomas (OSCC) have a better prognosis than patients with HPV-negative OSCC.
This may be attributed to different genetic pathways promoting cancer. Experimental Design:
We used comparative genomic hybridization to identify critical genetic changes in 60
selected OSCC, 28 of which were associated with HPV-16 as determined by HPV-specific
PCR and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis and positive p16INK4A immunostaining …
Abstract
Purpose: Patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)-containing oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OSCC) have a better prognosis than patients with HPV-negative OSCC. This may be attributed to different genetic pathways promoting cancer.
Experimental Design: We used comparative genomic hybridization to identify critical genetic changes in 60 selected OSCC, 28 of which were associated with HPV-16 as determined by HPV-specific PCR and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis and positive p16INK4A immunostaining. The results were correlated with HPV status and clinical data from patients.
Results: Two thirds of OSCC harbored gain at 3q26.3-qter irrespective of HPV status. In HPV-negative tumors this alteration was associated with advanced tumor stage (P = 0.013). In comparison with HPV-related OSCC, the HPV-negative tumors harbored: (a) a higher number of chromosomal alterations and amplifications (P = 0.03 and 0.039, respectively); (b) significantly more losses at 3p, 5q, 9p, 15q, and 18q, and gains/amplifications at 11q13 (P = 0.002, 0.03; <0.001, 0.02, 0.004, and 0.001, respectively); and (c) less often 16q losses and Xp gains (P = 0.02 and 0.03). Survival analysis revealed a significantly better disease-free survival for HPV-related OSCC (P = 0.02), whereas chromosome amplification was an unfavorable prognostic indicator for disease-free and overall survival (P = 0.01 and 0.05, respectively). Interestingly, 16q loss, predominantly identified in HPV-related OSCC, was a strong indicator of favorable outcome (overall survival, P = 0.008; disease-free survival, P = 0.01) and none of these patients had a tumor recurrence.
Conclusions: Genetic signatures of HPV-related and HPV-unrelated OSCC are different and most likely underlie differences in tumor development and progression. In addition, distinct chromosomal alterations have prognostic significance.
AACR