Multimodality Determination Of Hpv Status In Head And Neck Cancers (Hnc) And Development Of An Hpv Signature

Zhixiang Zuo,Michaela K. Keck,Arun Khattri,Rajesh Patel,Kim Walter,Mark W. Lingen,Kevin P. White,Peter S. Hammerman,Ezra E.W. Cohen,Kerstin M. Stenson,Elizabeth A. Blair,David S. Shames,Everett E. Vokes,Tanguy Y. Seiwert
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.6008
IF: 45.3
2013-01-01
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:6008 Background: Determination of HPV status is prognostically important, and various testing modalities are commonly used. Discordant results are occasionally observed and a gold standard (for research purposes) is E6/E7 mRNA expression. We aimed to evaluate accuracy of multiple research HPV tests compared to p16 expression/anatomic site, and developed a new HPV signature that we hypothesize will capture HPV-related oncogenic processes independent for all HPV types. Methods: HNCsamples from 136 patients were evaluated by: 1) nested E6 PCR (DNA) (Sotlar 2004), 2) qPCR for E6, E7 (HPV16), E6, L1 (HPV18) (mRNA), 3) p16 expression by IHC and/or mRNA. Results were correlated with anatomic site. A gene expression (GE) signature was developed based on Agilent 4x44Kv2 data and validated in a second cohort. In equivocal cases mutational status of TP53 was evaluated. Results: p16/CDKN2A expression was unreliable outside the oropharynx (OP) (81% false-positives in non-OP tumors, compared to 12% for OP tumors). Anatomic site as described by clinical reports was unreliable. In our cohort, 52 out 77 OP (67.6%) were HPV positive by DNA and RNA based approaches, 3 only by DNA. DNA and RNA based approaches appeared to be similarly accurate and concordant in 97% of samples. The newly developed HPV-GE signature was highly accurate, and allowed to reconcile discrepant cases, suggesting that the DNA-based approach overcalled HPV(+) in 2 tumors while the RNA based approach underreported HPV status in two cases. Expression levels of E6/E7 mRNA showed extensive variability in HPV(+) samples. Interestingly the HPV-GE signature suggested continuous/overlapping biology for a minority of cases. Two tumors (1 supraglottis/HPV18, 1 oropharynx/HPV16) tested HPV(+) by DNA/RNA, p16/CDKN2A, and HPV-GE signature while at the same time having TP53 mutations. Conclusions: p16 should not be used outside the oropharynx and anatomic allocation may also be inaccurate. DNA and mRNA based approaches perform equally well and can be reconciled using the HPV-GE signature. The HPV-GE signature supports the hypothesis that HPV(+) and HPV(-) biology may overlap in a minority of cases.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?