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.

Background: It has been reported that KRAS mutations (and to a lesser extent KRAS mutations with the BRAF V600E mutation) negatively affect response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mAbs in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients, while the biological impact of the EGFR pathway represented by PI3K/PTEN/AKT on anti-EGFR treatment is still not clear. Patients and methods: We analysed formalin-fixed samples from a cohort of 32 mCRC patients treated with cetuximab by means of EGFR immunohistochemistry, EGFR and PTEN FISH analysis, and KRAS, BRAF, PI3KCA, and PTEN genomic sequencing. Results: Ten (31%) of 32 patients showed a partial response to cetuximab and 22 (69%) did not [nonresponder (NR)]. EGFR immunophenotype and FISH-based gene status did not predict an anti-EGFR mAb response, whereas KRAS mutations (24%) and PI3K pathway activation, by means of PI3KCA mutations (13%) or PTEN mutation (10%)/loss (13%), were significantly restricted to, respectively, 41% and 37% of NRs. Conclusion: These findings suggested that KRAS mutations and PI3KCA/PTEN deregulation significantly correlate with resistance to cetuximab. In line with this, patients carrying KRAS mutations or with activated PI3K profiles can benefit from targeted treatments only by switching off molecules belonging to the downstream signalling of activated EGFR, such as mammalian target of rapamycin.

An NF1 microdeletion is the single most commonly reported mutation in individuals with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). Individuals with an NF1 microdeletion have, as a group, more neurofibromas at a younger age than the group of all individuals with NF1. We report that NF1 microdeletion individuals additionally have a substantially higher lifetime risk for the development of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors than individuals with NF1 who do not have an NF1 microdeletion. This should be taken into account in the medical follow-up of individuals with an NF1 microdeletion.