Purpose Human papilloma virus (HPV) infection is associated with several anogenital malignancies. Here, we set out to evaluate digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) as a tool for HPV 16, 18, 33 and 45 viral load quantification and, in addition, to compare the efficacy of the ddPCR assay for HPV 16 detection with that of quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR). Methods Clinical samples, positive for HPV genotypes 16, 18, 33 and 45 were analyzed for viral load using ddPCR. Sample DNA was cleaved before droplet generation and PCR. Droplets positive for VIC and FAM fluorescence were read in a QX200 Droplet reader™ (BIO-RAD) after which the viral load was calculated using Quantasoft software. Results We found that DNAs extracted from formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue samples yielded lower amplification signals compared to those obtained from liquid based cytology (LBC) samples, but they were clearly distinguishable from negative background signals. The viral limit of detection was 1.6 copies of HPV 16, 2.8 copies of HPV 18, 4.6 copies of HPV 33 and 1.6 copies of HPV 45. The mean inter-assay coefficients of variability (CV) for the assays ranged from 3.4 to 7.0%, and the mean intra-assay CV from 2.6 to 8.2%. The viral load in the different cohorts of tumor samples ranged from 154 to 340,200 copies for HPV 16, 244 to 31,300 copies for HPV 18 and 738 to 69,100 copies for HPV 33. One sample positive for HPV 45 contained 1331 viral copies. When comparing qPCR data with ddPCR copy number data, the qPCR values were found to be 1 to 31 times higher. Conclusions Separation of fragments in nanodroplets may facilitate the amplification of fragmented human and viral DNA. The method of digital droplet PCR may, thus, provide a new and promising tool for evaluating the HPV viral load in clinical samples.

Study Type – Aetiology (case series) Level of Evidence 4 OBJECTIVE: To analyse the overall and type‐specific human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence and distribution in penile carcinoma and determine the correlation to histopathological parameters. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, we analysed HPV status in 241 patients with penile carcinoma, treated at Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden, between 1984 and 2008. Age and date at diagnosis was recorded. The tumour specimens were categorized according to the UICC 2002 TNM classification. A subset of patients was operatively staged with regard to lymph node status. A commercially available Real Time PCR was used to detect 13 different types of HPV (6,11,16,18,31,33,35,45,51,52,56,58 and 59). RESULTS: We excluded 25 patients due to low DNA quality. Of the remaining 216, 179 (82.9%) tumour specimens were HPV infected. The majority of cases positive for HPV (70.4%) were infected by a single‐type. The most frequent type was HPV 16 followed by HPV 18. No significant association between HPV status and pathological tumour stage, grade or lymph node status was found. CONCLUSION: The HPV prevalence found is higher than in most other studies, further strengthening HPV as an etiological agent in penile carcinoma. Furthermore, the high prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 raises the question of what potential impact current HPV vaccines that target these specific HPV types might have on penile carcinoma. No significant association between HPV status and histopathological parameters was found in the present study. Additional investigations are needed to draw final conclusions on the prognostic value of HPV status in penile carcinoma.

To investigate if viral load, integration and methylation of E2BS3 and 4 represent different ways of tumor transformation in vaginal and vulvar carcinoma and to elucidate its clinical impact. Fifty-seven samples, positive for HPV16, were selected for the study. Detection of viral load was made with realtime-PCR using copy numbers of E6 and integration was calculated from comparing E2 to E6-copies. Methylation of E2BS3 and 4 was analysed using bisulphite treatment of tumor DNA, followed by PCR and pyrosequencing. Vaginal tumors were found to have a higher viral load (p = 0.024) compared to vulvar tumors but a high copy number (> median value, 15 000) as well as high methylation (>50%) was significantly (p = 0.010 and p = 0.045) associated with a worse cancer-specific survival rate in vulvar carcinoma, but not in vaginal carcinoma. Four groups could be defined for the complete series using a Cluster Two step analysis; (1) tumors holding episomal viral DNA, viral load below 150 000 copies not highly methylated (n = 25, 46.3%); (2) tumors harboring episomal viral DNA and being highly methylated (>50%; n = 6, 11.1%); (3) tumors with viral DNA fully integrated (n = 11, 20.4%), and (4) tumors harboring episomal viral DNA and being medium- or unmethylated ( total mean value 150 000; n = 12, 22.2%). The completely integrated tumors were found to be distinct group, whilst some overlap between the groups with high methylation and high viral load was observed. HPV16- related integration, methylation in E2BS3 and 4 and viral load may represent different viral characteristics driving vaginal and vulvar carcinogenesis. HPV16- related parameters were found to be of clinical importance in the vulvar series only.