Investigator

Inmaculada Nicolás

Universitat De Barcelona

INInmaculada Nicolás
Papers(2)
Prognostic implicatio…P16 and HPV Genotype …
Collaborators(7)
Jaume OrdiJoana FerreiraMarta del PinoMário CunhaSusana EstevesAna FélixFernanda Silva
Institutions(4)
Universitat De Barcel…University of Lisbon,…Hospital Clnic De Bar…Universidade NOVA de …

Papers

Prognostic implications of genotyping and p16 immunostaining in HPV-positive tumors of the uterine cervix

Human papillomaviruses (HPVs) are the causative agents of carcinoma of the uterine cervix. A number of HPV genotypes have been associated with cervical cancer and almost all tumors associated with HPV show strong p16 expression. However, there is little information on the possible impact of the HPV genotype and p16 immunostaining on the clinicopathological features or their prognostic value in cervical carcinoma. We evaluated a series of 194 patients with HPV-positive cervical cancers treated at our institution, focusing on the clinicopathological features and the relationship of the HPV genotypes and p16 immunostaining with the prognosis. A single HPV type was identified in 149 (77%) tumors, multiple HPV infection was detected in 30 cases (15%), and undetermined HPV type/s were identified in 15 (8%) carcinomas. HPV 16 and/or 18 were detected in 156 (80%) tumors. p16 was positive in 186 (96%) carcinomas, but eight tumors (4%) were negative for p16 (seven squamous cell carcinomas, one adenocarcinoma); 5/8 caused by HPV 16 and/or 18. Patients with HPV 16 and/or 18 were younger (49 ± 15 vs. 57 ± 17 years, p < 0.01) and more frequently had nonsquamous tumors than patients with other HPV types (24% [37/156] vs. 0% [0/38]; p = 0.01). Neither the HPV type nor multiple infection showed any prognostic impact. Patients with p16-negative tumors showed a significantly worse overall survival than women with p16-positive carcinomas (45 vs. 156 months, p = 0.03), although no significant differences in disease-free survival were observed. In the multivariate analysis, negative p16 immunostaining was associated with a worse overall survival together with advanced FIGO stage and lymph node metastases. In conclusion, the HPV genotype has limited clinical utility and does not seem to have prognostic value in cervical cancer. In contrast, a negative p16 result in patients with HPV-positive tumors is a prognostic marker associated with a poor overall survival.

P16 and HPV Genotype Significance in HPV-Associated Cervical Cancer—A Large Cohort of Two Tertiary Referral Centers

The expression of p16 is a good surrogate of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in HPV-associated cancers. The significance of p16 expression, HPV genotype and genera in the outcome of patients with HPV-associated cervical cancer (CC) is unclear. Our aim is to ascertain the prognostic significance of these factors. Data from 348 patients (median age: 47.5 years old) with CC, diagnosed in two referral centers, were retrospectively collected. Advanced disease (FIGO2018 IB2-IV) was present in 68% of patients. A single HPV genotype was identified in 82.8% of patients. The most common HPVs were HPV16 (69%) and HPV18 (14%). HPV genera reflected this distribution. HPV16 tumors presented at an earlier stage. P16 was negative in 18 cases (5.2%), 83.3% of which were squamous cell carcinomas. These cases occurred in older patients who tended to have advanced disease. In the univariate analysis, HPV16 (HR: 0.58; p = 0.0198), α-9 genera (HR: 0.37; p = 0.0106) and p16 overexpression (HR: 0.54; p = 0.032) were associated with better survival. HPV16 (HR: 0.63; p = 0.0174) and α-9 genera (HR: 0.57; p = 0.0286) were associated with less relapse. In the multivariate analysis, only the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage retained an independent prognostic value. HPV16, α-9 genera and p16 overexpression were associated with better survival, although not as independent prognostic factors. Patients with p16-negative HPV-associated CC were older, presented with advanced disease and had worse prognosis.

10Works
2Papers
7Collaborators