Topic Highlight
Copyright ©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Clin Oncol. Oct 10, 2014; 5(4): 781-791
Published online Oct 10, 2014. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v5.i4.781
Table 1 Human papillomavirus-negetive vs human papillomavirus-positive tumors in 2011 based upon ACS estimates
Head and neck cancersTotalHPV-HPV+
Larynx12740101922548
OC/P: mouth1151092082302
OC/P: other22501800450
OC/P: tongue1206043427718
OC/P: pharynx1358048898691
(Oropharyngeal cancer)(25640)(9230)(16410)
Total521403145620684
Table 2 Selected references for association of tumor human papillomavirus status with prognosis
Ref.CountryNSiteDetection (PCR, p16,ISH)aPrevalence of HPV-positive diseasebFollow-up timec (1median, 2mean, 3range)Significantly improved prognosis for HPV-positive tumor status? (Yes/No)Prognosis for HPV-positivevs HPV-negative diseasedFactors adjusted for
Andl et al[31], 1998Germany31TonsilPCR, p1648%28 mo2YesOS: improved (P = 0.0071) DFS: median 61.1 mo vs 25.8 mo (P = 0.028)Overall stage
Gillison et al[47], 2000United States259HNSCCPCR, ISH25% overall; 57% OP31 mo2YesOS: 91 mo vs 76 mo, HR 0.6 (0.35-1.0, P = 0.07); DSS: HR 0.41 (0.20-0.88, P = 0.02)Age, LN disease, alcohol
Mellin et al[32], 2000Sweden60TonsilPCR43%59 mo1YesOS: 5-yr 53.5% vs 31.5%; RFS: OR 19.6 (P = 0.014); DSS: improved (P = 0.047)RFS: Overall stage DSS: Overall stage, LN metastases, age, gender
Lindel et al[33], 2001Switzerland99OPPCR14%YesLFFS: RR 0.31 (0.09-0.99, P = 0.048)T, alcohol, intratumoral microvessel density
Weinberger et al[78], 2006United States123OPp1613%33 mo2YesOS: 5-yr 60% vs 21%, HR 0.422 (0.2-0.9, P = 0.021) DFS: 5-yr 62% vs 19%, HR 0.359 (0.2-0.7, P = 0.006)tumor type (primary vs recurrent), overall stage, grade, treatment
Weinberger et al[78], 2006United States79OPPCR, p1661%22 mo2YesOS: 5-yr 79% vs 18%-20%, HR 0.19 (0.1-0.7, P = 0.13) DFS: 5-yr 75% vs 13%-15%, HR 0.20 (0.1-0.6), P = 0.005)primary vs recurrence, treatment, overall stage, grade
Licitra et al[82], 2006Italy90OPPCR, p1619%5.8 yr1YesOS: 5-yr 79% vs 46% (P = 0.0018), improved when adjusted for stageOverall stage
Reimers et al[72], 2007Germany106OPPCR, p1630%YesDFS: 85% vs 49% (P = 0.009), HR for HPV-negative tumors 7.5 (1.22-46.19), P = 0.030EGFR expression status, overall stage
Kumar et al[73], 2008United States66OPPCR, p16YesOS: improved (P = 0.006) DSS: improved (P = 0.02)Smoking, gender
Fakhry et al[6], 2008United States96OP, larynxPCR, ISH63% OP, 0% larynx39.1 mo1YesOS: 2-yr 95% vs 62% (P = 0.005), HR 0.36, (0.15-0.85) PFS: HR 0.27 (0.10-0.75)age, overall stage, ECOG performance status
Hafkamp et al[71], 2008Netherlands81TonsilISH, p1641%30 mo2YesDSS: 5-yr 55% vs 29%, unadjusted HR 2.3 (1.1-4.5)
Worden et al[37], 2008United States66OPPCR64%64 mo1YesOS: improved (P = 0.008) DSS: improved (P = 0.004)gender, smoking, T, N, age, site
Smith et al[28], 2009Germany60OPPCR, ISH, p1647%27.5 mo1YesDFS: 5-yr 71% vs 46%(P = 0.02)
Lassen et al[36], 2009Denmark156Supragl- ottic larynx, pharynxp1622%> 5 yrYesOS: 5-yr 62% vs 26% (P = 0.0003), HR 0.44 (0.28-0.68) DSS: 5-yr 72% vs 34% (P = 0.0006), HR 0.36 (0.20-0.64)T, N
Ang et al[7], 2010United States323OPISH, p1663.80%4.8 yr1YesOS: 3-yr 82.4% vs 57.1% (P < 0.001), HR 0.42 (0.27-0.66) PFS: 3-yr 73.7% vs 43.4% (P < 0.001), HR 0.49 (0.33-0.74)age, race, T, N, tobacco exposure, treatment assignment
Rischin et al[44], 2010United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Europe184OPPCR, ISH, p1657%29 mo2YesOS: 2-yr 91% vs 74% (P = 0.004), HR 0.43 (0.20-0.93), P = 0.031ECOG performance status, hemoglobin, T, N
Chaturvedi et al[14], 2011United States271OPPCR , ISH44%112 mo1YesOS: median 131 vs 20 mo (P < 0.001), HR 0.31 (0.21-0.46)age, calendar period of diagnosis, overall stage, treatment
Posner et al[35], 2011United States111OPPCR50%82-83 mo1YesOS: improved, unadjusted HR 0.2 (0.10-0.38, P < 0.0001) PFS: 73% vs 29% (P < 0.0001) LRF: 13% vs 42% (P = 0.0006)
Liang[36], 2012United States488HNSCCPCR, p1662%NoDSS (OP): HR 0.1 (0.02-0.4)