Content uploaded by Karl Munger
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Karl Munger
Content may be subject to copyright.
10.1056/nejme1003607 nejm.org
1
The
new england journal
of
me dicine
editorial
Prognostic Implications of HPV in Oropharyngeal Cancer
Douglas R. Lowy, M.D., and Karl Munger, Ph.D.
Identification of human papillomavirus (HPV) as
the etiologic agent of cervical cancer has led to
its identification in other cancers, with oropha-
ryngeal squamous-cell carcinoma t he most com-
mon of these.
1,2
In this issue of the Journal, Ang
and colleagues
3
report findings from their study
(ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047008) that
contribute to the growing body of evidence that
HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous-cell carci-
noma represents a distinct clinicopathological
entity associated with a better prognosis than
HPV-negative oropharyngeal squamous-cell carci-
noma.
4,5
In a randomized trial of patients with
oropha r y nge a l squa mous- cel l car cinom a, t he over-
all survival was substantially better among pa-
tients with HPV-positive cancer than among pa-
tients with HPV-negative cancer. The size of the
sample — 323 patients with oropharyngeal
squamous-cell c arcinoma and known HPV status,
of whom 64% had HPV-positive tumors — en-
abled the authors to control for many variables
and to conclude that HPV status was a critical
independent prognostic determinant.
The two classes of oropharyngeal squamous-
cell carcinoma appear to have distinct causes.
HPV-positive cases are associated with sex-related
risk factors that have also been linked to cervical
cancer and an increased likelihood of orogenital
activity, whereas tobacco and alcohol consump-
tion are the key risk factors for HPV-negative
cases. Epidemiologic studies suggest little inter-
action between the two sets of risk factors, sug-
gesting that HPV-positive cancer and HPV-nega-
t iv e c anc er ma y e ach h av e a di st i nc t p at hoge ne si s.
However, the data reported by Ang and col-
leagues suggest that smoking has an adverse
effect on prognosis in both HPV-positive and
HPV-negative cases. The incidence of oropharyn-
geal squamous-cell carcinoma is increasing in
industrialized countries, because the substantial
rise in HPV-positive cases is greater than the de-
crease in HPV-negative cases, which has paral-
leled decreases in other cancers associated with
tobacco use.
Clea r-cut molecula r dif ferences between HPV-
positive and HPV-negative oropharyngeal squa-
mous-cell carcinoma have been identified.
5,6
Nearly all HPV-positive cases express the viral
E6 and E7 oncoproteins. Each of these proteins
subverts a variety of cellular regulatory mecha-
nisms that are predominantly antiproliferative,
of which the best known are the p53 and retino-
blastoma (pRb) tumor suppressors.
7
The gene en-
coding p53, which is inactivated at the protein
level by E6, remains the wild type in almost all
HPV-posit ive tumors, whereas it is frequently mu-
tated in HPV-negative tumors. In HPV-positive
cases, the pRb protein is inactivated by E7; in
HPV-negative cases, the p16 tumor suppressor, a
component of the pRb tumor-suppressor net-
work, is frequently inactivated. Most HPV-posi-
tive tumors, including HPV-positive oropharyngeal
squamous-cell carcinoma, express p16, although
its tumor-suppressor activity is lost because that
function is mediated by pRb, which is inactivated
by E7. Other molecular differences between HPV-
positive and HPV-negative oropharyngeal squa-
mous-cell carcinoma have also been described.
8
The viral proteins E6 and E7 may render the
HPV-positive tumors more immunogenic than the
HPV-negative tumors. Serologic assays can detect
anti-E6 or anti-E7 antibodies in many patients
with HPV-positive tumors. A higher proportion
of patients with HPV-positive tumors have par-
tial or complete responses to therapy, even after
adjustment for differences in tumor stage. In ad-
Copyright © 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from www.nejm.org on June 9, 2010 . For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
The
new england journal
of
me dicine
10.1056/nejme1003607 nejm.org
2
dition, patients with HPV-positive orophar yngeal
squamous-cell carcinoma are younger, often have
less-advanced disease, and are less likely to have
serious concomitant disease than patients with
HPV-negative cancer. However, Ang and col-
leagues estimate that these factors account for
only about one tenth of the prognostic differ-
ence between the t wo groups.
Given this background, how might we under-
stand the relative contributions of differences in
inherent malignancy, immunogenicity, and treat-
ment response to the prognosis for patients with
HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous-cell carci-
noma? It is plausible that HPV-positive cancer is
inherently less malignant than HPV-negative
cancer. Consistent with this speculation, when
surgery is the only treatment provided for oro-
pharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma, patients
with p16-positive tumors have a better progno-
sis than those with p16-negative tumors, after
adjustment for tumor stage.
9
Mechanistically,
although expression of the HPV E6 and E7 onco-
genes markedly dampens the activity of certain
tumor suppressors, these suppressor pathways
are often inactivated to a greater degree in HPV-
negative tumors, by genetic or epigenetic mech-
anisms. For example, HPV E6 expression causes
accelerated degradation of the p53 protein, re-
sulting in a dramatic reduction of p53 levels. In
contrast, p53 mutation in an HPV-negative tu-
mor may result in the synthesis of a p53 protein
that not only is inactive as a tumor suppressor
but also can bind and inactivate any remaining
wild-type p53 in a tumor cell and that may be
associated with a gain of oncogenic activity.
Other differences in gene expression may also
contribute to a more severe, malignant pheno-
type in HPV-negative tumors than in HPV-posi-
tive ones.
8
The immunogenicity of viral proteins could
partially restrict the malignant behavior of HPV-
positive cancers. The presence of antibodies
against E6 and E7 or tumor-inf iltrating lympho-
cytes may be associated with a better progno-
sis.
10,11
Murine models suggest that treatment
might enhance the immunogenicity of HPV-pos-
itive tumors, thus contributing to the superior
treatment response.
12
However, the extent to
which the clinical outcome is attributable to the
immune response is unclear.
Biologic and immunologic properties of HPV-
positive tumors may contribute to their better
response to treatment with radiation and chemo-
therapy. Critical factors may include differences
in the degree to which various growth-regulatory
pathways are altered in HPV-positive tumors as
compared with HPV-negative tumors, together
with the mechanisms by which the pathways
have been perturbed. For example, since the p53
and pRb pathways are merely rendered dormant
by expression of the HPV E6 and E7 oncogenes,
these pathways can be reactivated under condi-
tions that reduce this expression.
13
Laboratory
evidence suggests that treatment of HPV-posit ive
cells with standard chemotherapeutic agents
causes down-regulation of HPV E6 and E7 ex-
pression and reactivation of tumor-suppressor
pathways, including that of p53.
14
On the other
hand, mutant p53, frequently present in HPV-
negative tumors, is associated with treatment
resistance.
The conclusion that HPV-positive and HPV-
negative oropharyngeal squamous-cell carcino-
mas are distinct entities implies that their treat-
ment or prevention might benefit from different
approaches. For example, in HPV-positive can-
cers, efforts to inhibit the expression or activity
of E6 and E7 might result in effective treat-
ment.
13
For HPV-negative cancers, the targeting
of pathogenetically relevant biomarkers associ-
ated with a poor prognosis, such as BCL2, might
improve the therapeutic response.
15
For preven-
tion, risk reduction through modification of ex-
posure to the various etiologic factors is one
approach, and the development of screening
methods is another. Vaccination against HPV
also may be a way to prevent HPV-positive oro-
pharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma.
6
Approxi-
mately 90% of HPV-positive cancers contain
HPV type 16, and another 5% have HPV type 18.
Both HPV types are targeted by the t wo preven-
tive HPV vaccines approved by the Food and
Drug Administration. Vaccination, if performed
before exposure to the virus, might prevent a
large number of HPV-positive cases of oropha-
ryngeal squamous-cell carcinoma. The vaccines
can prevent persistent genita l infection with these
types of HPV and the consequent precancerous
lesions, but it is not known whether they can
prevent oropharyngeal HPV infection.
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with
the full text of this article at NEJM.org.
Copyright © 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from www.nejm.org on June 9, 2010 . For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
10.1056/nejme1003607 nejm.org
3
editorial
From the Laboratory of Cellular Oncolog y, Center for Cancer
Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (D.R.L.);
and the Division of Infectious Diseases, Brigham and Women’s
Hospital, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School,
Boston (K.M.).
This article (10.1056/NEJMe1003607) was published on June 7,
2010, at NEJM.org.
Low y DR, Solomon D, Hildesheim A , Schi ller JT, Schiff man 1.
M. Human papil lomavi rus infection and t he prima ry and sec-
ondar y prevention of cer vica l ca ncer. Cancer 2008;113:7 Suppl:
1980-93.
Chaturvedi AK. Beyond cervical cancer: burden of other 2.
HPV-related cancers a mong men and women. J Adolesc Health
2010;46:S20-S26.
Ang KK, Harris J, Wheeler R, et al. Huma n papillomavirus 3.
and sur vival of patients wit h orophary ngeal cancer. N Engl J
Med 2010. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0912217.
Dahlstrand H, Näsma n A, Romanitan M, Lindquist D, 4.
Ramqvist T, Dalian is T. Human papillomavirus accounts bot h
for inc re ased i ncidence and bett er prog no sis in t on sillar c ance r.
Antic ancer Res 2008;28:1133-8.
Vi dal L, Gil liso n ML . Huma n pa pi llo mav ir us i n H NSCC : re c-5.
ognit ion of a distinct disease t ype. Hematol Oncol Clin North
Am 2008;22:1125-42.
Psy rri A , Gouveris P, Verm ork en J B. Hu ma n papillo mavirus-6.
re lat ed hea d an d neck tum ors: c li nica l an d re se arch im pli cat ion .
Curr Opin Oncol 2009;21:201-5.
McLaughlin-Drubin ME, Munger K. Oncogenic activities of 7.
huma n papillomavir uses. Virus Res 20 09;143:195-208.
Pyeon D, New ton MA, L amber t PF, et al. Fundamental dif-8.
ferences in cell cycle deregulat ion in human papillomavirus-
positi ve a nd hu man papillomavi ru s-negat ive head/neck and ce r-
vical c ancers. C ancer Res 2007;67:4605-19.
Fis ch er CA, Zlob ec I, Gre en E, e t al. Is t he im proved p ro gn o-9.
sis of p16 positive orophary ngea l squamous cel l carcinoma depen-
dent on t he treatment moda lity? Int J Cancer 2010;126:1256-
62.
Rajjoub S, Basha SR, Einhorn E, Cohen MC, Marvel DM, 10.
Sewell DA. Prog nostic signif icance of tumor-i nf iltrating l ympho-
cytes in orophar yngeal cancer. Ear Nose Throat J 2007;86:506-
11.
Smith EM, Rubenstein LM, Ritchie JM, et al. Does pretreat-11.
ment seropositivity to hum an papi llomav irus have prog nostic
significance for head and neck cancers? Cancer Epidemiol Bio-
markers Prev 2008;17:2087-96.
Spanos WC, Nowicki P, Lee DW, et a l. Immune response 12.
duri ng th er apy wit h cisp la tin or r ad iat ion fo r hu man p ap il loma-
vir us -re la te d he ad and nec k c an cer . Arc h Otol ar yn gol H ead N eck
Surg 2009;135:1137-46.
Ra mpi as T, Sa sa ki C , Wei nb erger P, P sy rri A . E 6 a nd E7 ge ne 13.
silencing and transformed phenotype of human papillomavirus
16-positive orophary ngeal cancer cells. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;
101 :412-23.
But z K, G eise n C, Ull ma nn A , Sp it kovsk y D, Hoppe-Se yl er F. 14 .
Cellular responses of HPV-posit ive cancer cells t o genotoxic anti-
cancer agents: repression of E6/E7-oncogene expression and in-
duction of apoptosis. Int J Cancer 1996;68:506-13.
Nichols AC, Finkelstein DM, Faquin WC, et al. Bcl2 and hu-15.
ma n papil loma vir us 16 a s pre di ctor s of out co me foll ow ing c on-
current chemoradiation for advanced oropharyngeal cancer. Clin
Cancer Res 2010;16:2138-46.
Copyri ght © 2010 Mass achusetts M edical Soc iety.
Copyright © 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from www.nejm.org on June 9, 2010 . For personal use only. No other uses without permission.