International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 2014-03-01
Nonendemic HPV-positive nasopharyngeal carcinoma: association with poor prognosis.
Abstract
Purpose
To investigate the relationship between human papillomavirus (HPV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) in nonendemic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and assess the prognostic implications of viral status.
Methods and materials
Paraffin-embedded tumor specimens from 62 patients with primary NPC diagnosed between 1985 and 2011 were analyzed for EBV and high-risk HPV. EBV status was determined by the use of in situ hybridization for EBV encoded RNA. HPV status was assessed with p16 immunohistochemistry and multiplex polymerase chain reaction MassArray for determination of HPV type. Proportional hazards models were used to compare the risk of death among patients as stratified by viral status.
Results
Of 61 evaluable tumors, 26 (43%) were EBV-positive/HPV-negative, 18 (30%) were HPV-positive/EBV-negative, and 17 (28%) were EBV/HPV-negative. EBV and HPV infection was mutually exclusive. HPV positivity was significantly correlated with World Health Organization grade 2 tumors, older age, and smoking (all P<.001). The racial distribution of the study population was 74% white, 15% African American, and 11% Asian/Middle Eastern. Among HPV-positive patients, 94% were white. At a median follow-up time of 7 years, HPV-positive and EBV/HPV-negative tumors exhibited worse outcomes than did EBV-positive tumors, including decreased overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 2.98, P=.01; and HR 3.89, P=.002), progression-free survival (HR 2.55, P=.02; and HR 4.04, P<.001), and locoregional control (HR 4.01, P=.03; and HR 6.87, P=.001).
Conclusion
In our Midwestern population, high-risk HPV infection may play an etiologic role in the development of nonendemic, EBV-negative NPC. Compared with EBV-positive NPC, HPV-positive and EBV/HPV-negative NPC are associated with worse outcomes. A larger confirmatory study is needed to validate these findings.
Related Questions
What are your top takeaways in Head & Neck Cancers from ASCO 2025?
The phase 3 KEYNOTE-689 and the phase 3 NIVOPOSTOP. A key distinction is that KEYNOTE-689 incorporated both neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy, while NIVOPOSTOP restricted immunotherapy to the adjuvant phase and specifically targeted patients with high-risk features (+ margins and ECS) post-surg...
What are your top takeaways in Head & Neck Cancers from ASTRO 2024?
Here are my impressions from 3 interesting presentations related to head and neck cancer: S2-S3, Yom et al., Interim futility results of NRG-HN005 a randomized phase II/III non-inferiority trial for non-smoking p16+ oropharyngeal ca. The study tested non-inferiority regarding DFS of two de-escalate...
Per the latest ASCO and ESMO guidelines, which stage II NPC patients would you omit concurrent cisplatin?
ASCO recommendations for stage II NPC are: “For T2N0 (AJCC 8th) NPC patients, chemotherapy is not routinely recommended, but may be offered if there are adverse features, such as bulky tumor volumes or high EBV DNA copy number. For T1-2N1 NPC patients, concurrent chemotherapy may be offered, particu...
What are your top takeaways in Head & Neck Cancers from ASCO 2022?
In nasopharyngeal cancer, the group from Sun Yat-Sen University presented the results of a non-inferiority, randomized phase III study comparing RT alone vs RT concurrent with cisplatin for intermediate-risk patients (stage II and T3N0M0) (Ma et al., 2022 ASCO Annual Meeting, abstract #6000). They f...
What mucosal surfaces do you commonly cover with HPV-positive squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck of unknown primary?
This is an interesting question. Many radiation oncologists are eliminating the nasopharyngeal mucosa from the field when designing plans for “comprehensive mucosal irradiation” in cases of unknown primary head and neck cancers with HPV or p16 positive squamous histology. I am currently not comforta...