Purpose: Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA tumors actively integrating the E6 and E7 oncogenes have a distinct biologic behavior resulting in a more favorable prognosis. To which extent the viral integration by itself, and/or the associated wild-type (wt) TP53 status, and/or a functional p16 contribute to prognosis is unclear.Patients and Methods: To clarify how the presence of high-risk (HR) -HPV, TP53, and p16^INK4astatus interact with clinical outcome, we considered a retrospective series of 90 consecutive oropharyngeal cancer patients treated primarily with surgery.Results: Seventeen (19%) patients showed integrated HPV 16 DNA (HPV positive), wt TP53 in all but two patients, normal p16^INK4ain 15 assessable patients, and p16 expression in all 17 patients. Thirty-five patients (39%), two of whom were HPV positive, harbored TP53 mutations. p16^INK4adeletion and p16 null immunophenotype occurred in 28 and 58 patients, respectively, and was similarly distributed in both patients with mutated TP53 (48% and 82%, respectively) and in patients with wt TP53 (46% and 77%, respectively). Statistical analysis showed that HPV-positive status significantly affects all investigated end points: overall survival (P = .0018), incidence of tumor relapse (P = .0371), and second tumor (P = .0152), whereas TP53 and p16^INK4astatus and p16 expression were not prognostic by themselves.Conclusion: Our molecular and clinical results are in agreement with previous findings but provide additional information into the biologic mechanisms involved in HR-HPV oropharyngeal cancer in comparison to HPV-negative tumors. According to the reduced risk of relapse and second tumors associated with HR-HPV positivity of oropharyngeal cancer, the therapeutic strategy and follow-up procedures should be reviewed.

Purpose: Prognosis of patients with advanced oral cavity cancer is worth improving. Chemotherapy has been reported to be especially active in oral cavity tumors. Here we repeat the results of a randomized, multicenter trial enrolling patients with a resectable, stage T2–T4 (> 3 cm), N0–N2, M0 untreated, squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity. Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to three cycles of cisplatin and fluorouracil followed by surgery (chemotherapy arm) or surgery alone (control arm). In both arms, postoperative radiotherapy was reserved to high-risk patients, and surgery was modulated depending on the tumor’s closeness to the mandible. Patients’ accrual was opened in 1989 and closed in 1999. It included 195 patients. Results: In the chemotherapy arm, three toxic deaths were recorded. No significant difference in overall survival was found. Five-year overall survival was, for both arms, 55%. Postoperative radiotherapy was administered in 33% of patients in the chemotherapy arm, versus 46% in the control arm. A mandible resection was performed in 52% of patients in the control arm, versus 31% in the chemotherapy arm. Conclusion: The addition of primary chemotherapy to standard surgery was unable to improve survival. However, in this study, primary chemotherapy seemed to play a role in reducing the number of patients who needed to undergo mandibulectomy and/or radiation therapy. Variations in the criteria used to select patients for these treatment options may make it difficult to generalize these results, but there appears to be room for using preoperative chemotherapy to spare demolitive surgery and/or radiation therapy in patients with advanced, resectable oral cavity cancer.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to acquire further insights into the pathogenetic pathways of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC) that may be useful for identifying new biomarkers instrumental in developing more specific treatment approaches. Experimental Design: Cell cycle regulators and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and BRAF genes were analyzed in a series of 90 oropharyngeal SCCs of a cohort of surgically treated patients from a single institution, and the results were matched with the presence of high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) DNA and the TP53 status. Results: At least four distinct groups of tumors were identified sharing a common histology but displaying different molecular/cytogenetic patterns: (a) 19% were HPV-positive SCCs whose lack of alterations of the investigated genes could explain their particular natural history, which requires less aggressive treatment; (b) 37% were HPV-negative SCCs carrying TP53 mutations, which may be more effectively treated by drugs acting through p53-independent apoptosis; (c) 34% were HPV-negative SCCs carrying wild-type TP53 and loss of 9p21 (p16^INK4a and p15^INK4b) and/or cyclin D1 overexpression that justify treatment with DNA-damaging drugs followed by cell cycle inhibitors; and (d) 10% were HPV-negative lacking tumor suppressor genes and cell cycle alterations. The second, third, and fourth groups also showed an increased copy number of EGFR and chromosome 7 (43%) that might justify the additional or alternative use of EGFR inhibitors. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that assessing HPV, TP53, 9p21, and EGFR status may be crucial to finding more tailored and beneficial treatments for oropharyngeal SCCs.

Malignant neoplasms of the paranasal sinuses are very rare (about 3% of head and neck malignant tumors). Moreover, there is a great variety of histologic types. Consequently, few medical centers have treated so many patients that they are able to draw indisputable conclusions about prognostic factors and long-term results. To our knowledge, no report of a randomized clinical trial about different treatments has been published, and the chance to perform such a trial is remote. However, the combination of surgery and radiotherapy seems to offer better local control than radiotherapy alone.^1,2 The treatment of the primary tumor is so challenging that often the problem of lymph node (LN) metastases has been considered to be of minor importance. Fortunately, the incidence rate of LN metastases is low,³ even if it is difficult to state its real rate for the variety of histologic types, site of origin, and extension of the primary tumor in each published series. Obviously, patients with clinically positive LNs require treatment of the neck. Yet, the treatment of patients with an N0 neck is still unclear. In the literature, statements like these may be found: