P16 INK4a is not a Reliable Screening Marker of HPV Infection in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background

The role of p16^INK4a as a surrogate marker for screening human papillomavirus (HPV) in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains controversial.

Methods

A comprehensive search of EMBASE, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and China Biology Medicine was performed from inception to December 27, 2015. A random-effects model was applied to the pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Ten studies were identified (985 cases). The pooled results showed no significant relationship between p16^INK4a expression and HPV infection in ESCC based on overall HPV types (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 0.69-4.66, p = 0.235). Subgroup analysis by HPV detection method showed no statistical significance in either the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (OR: 1.65, 95% CI: 0.83-3.30, p = 0.154) or in situ hybridization (ISH) group (OR: 2.58, 95% CI: 0.03-268.14, p = 0.689). The pooled OR of the sensitivity analysis ranged from 1.27 (95% CI: 0.58-2.84) to 2.32 (95% CI: 0.95-5.64). Of these studies, 6 involved only high-risk human papillomavirus types (HR-HPV), HPV16 or HPV18. However, similar observations were made for HR-HPV (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.26-6.59, p = 0.741). Subgroup analysis again showed no statistical significance in the PCR group (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.25-3.64, p = 0.940) and ISH group (OR: 2.58, 95% CI: 0.03-268.14, p = 0.689). Sensitivity analysis showed that the pooled OR ranged from 0.69 (95% CI: 0.21-2.22) to 1.89 (95% CI: 0.33-10.86).

Conclusions

p16^INK4a is not a reliable screening marker of HPV infection in ESCC. Further multicenter, large-sample and well-matched prospective studies are still required to illuminate the possible etiological roles of HPV in ESCC.

Keywords

Human papillomavirus Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma Meta-analysis

Introduction

Esophageal carcinoma ranks ninth in cancer incidence and sixth in cancer mortality around the world (1). A recent study carried out by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) showed that there are approximately 455,800 new cases of esophageal carcinoma and 400,200 related deaths each year. Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) has been identified as the most common pathological type (more than 90%) (1, 2). According to the recorded clinical data, human papillomavirus (HPV) has been detected in a large number of patients with ESCC (3).

HPV is a spherical DNA virus that only infects human beings; it has more than 130 genotypes, most notable among which HPV16 and HPV18. Previous studies have established HPV as an etiological factor in cervical neoplasms (4-5-6), along with being a significant risk factor in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (7), particularly oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (8, 9). HPV has been suggested to be a risk factor for ESCC since the presence of HPV in ESCC was first mentioned by Syrjänen in the 1980s (10). This virus possesses 2 identified oncogenes, E6 and E7. E6 has been demonstrated to inactivate p53 and thus plays an important role in the development of cancer. E7 also showed notable oncogenic potential by its ability to inactivate retinoblastoma tumor suppressor actions (11). E6 and E7 can prompt the cell to enter S-phase, leading to cell-cycle interruption and proliferation and subsequently oncogenesis, and eventually inducing upregulation of p16^INK4a expression to levels that can be detected readily by immunohistochemistry (IHC) (12).

Previous studies have demonstrated that p16^INK4a is highly expressed in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma patients who have been infected by HPV (12-13-14). Additionally, p16^INK4a was also strongly expressed in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (7, 15) and patients with cervical squamous cell carcinoma (16, 17) who had been infected by HPV. Based on these results, p16^INK4a is mostly regarded as a screening marker in squamous cell carcinoma in patients infected with HPV (12, 16, 17, 13-14-15). Nonetheless, the role of p16^INK4a as a surrogate marker of HPV infection in ESCC remains controversial.

Numerous studies have researched the role of p16^INK4a in HPV-infected ESCC patients, but there are still no final and consistent conclusions. Among the included studies, some (18-19-20-21-22) suggested that p16^INK4a may play an important role in the development of ESCC in patients infected with HPV, but others (23-24-25-26-27) hold an opposite view. It is therefore necessary to perform quantitative aggregation of these results. In an attempt to clarify the controversy, we undertook this meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between p16^INK4a expression and HPV in ESCC.

Materials and methods

This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) checklist (Supplementary Table S1 - PRISMA checklist. Available online at www.biological-markers.com) (28).

Search Strategy

An independent search was done by 2 authors for studies from the following databases: EMBASE, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and China Biology Medicine (CBM) from inception to December 27, 2015. The search strategies used combinations of the following search terms: (“esophageal squamous cell carcinoma” OR “oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma” OR “esophageal carcinoma” OR “esophageal cancer” OR “carcinoma of esophagus”) AND (“HPV” OR “human papillomavirus”) AND (“p16^INK4a” OR “p16^INK4a protein” OR “p16” OR “p16^INK4a gene”). Only human studies were considered. No language or date-of-publication restrictions were imposed. In addition, a manual search was done by checking the references of relevant studies to identify additional potential studies. Any divergence was resolved through discussion and consensus with a third author.

Eligibility Criteria

Three authors evaluated the studies obtained with the independent search. Divergences were solved by discussion between authors. The eligibility criteria were as follows: (i) studies in which patients were diagnosed with ESCC by pathological diagnosis; (ii) studies explicitly describing the method of HPV DNA detection, which mainly included polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and in situ hybridization (ISH) amplification methods; (iii) randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, and prospective cohort studies; (iv) studies in which the sample size was no less than 5 individuals; (v) studies that reported the relationship between p16^INK4a expression and HPV infection in ESCC. If a study was reported in duplication, we selected the one which provided more relevant information. Review articles without data, case reports, letters, and studies on animals and other cancers were excluded.

Data Extraction

Data extraction was carried out independently by 4 authors according to an accepted standard. Subsequently, the collected data were cross-checked by 2 additional authors and discrepancies were solved by discussion. For each article, we extracted in detail the following data: author information, date of publication, name of journal, study design, study country or area, sample size, characteristics of patients, types of primers and specimens, HPV types, method of HPV detection, p16^INK4a detection method, and definition of p16^INK4a expression. Subsequently, we imported the collected data into a standardized Microsoft Office Excel file.

Quality Assessment

The quality of the established studies was systematically assessed by 4 reviewers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) criteria (www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp). A star system for quality assessment was used that contains 3 sections: selection (0-4); comparability (0-2); and exposure (0-3) (29). The aggregate stars ranged from 0 to 9. Studies with at least 5 stars were included in our meta-analysis, and those with more than 7 stars were regarded as high-quality studies. We again resolved any disagreement through discussion between the authors.

Statistical Analysis

Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to estimate the relationship between p16^INK4a expression and HPV infection in ESCC. Statistical tests were two-sided and p values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. We used the inconsistency (I²) test and Cochran's Q-test to calculate heterogeneity between studies. I² values <25%, 25%-50%, 50%-75%, and >75% were supposed to have no heterogeneity, low heterogeneity, moderate heterogeneity, and high heterogeneity, respectively (30). If significant heterogeneity was observed (I²>50% or p value of the Q-test <0.1), a random-effects model was applied; otherwise, a fixed-effects model was used (31). To assess the stability of the pooled results, sensitivity analysis was applied. To explore the sources of heterogeneity, subgroup analyses were done.

The potential publication bias was assessed by means of the funnel plots of Egger's and Begg's tests. If the funnel plot was asymmetric or the p value of Egger's tests >0.5, this was regarded as no publication bias. Stata version 12.0 (StataCorp LP) (www.stata.com) was used for all statistical analyses in the study.

Results

Search Results

A total of 83 potentially relevant studies were initially identified based on our predefined search strategy. After excluding duplicates and screening titles and abstracts, 27 articles were chosen for further detailed evaluation, and 56 articles were excluded for the following reasons: duplicates (n = 28); review or systematic review (n = 5); reported on esophageal precancerous lesions (n = 5); reported on esophageal squamous papilloma (n = 4); reported on head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (n = 5); reported on esophageal adenocarcinoma and Barrett's esophagus (n = 4); reported on cell metabolism (n = 5). After reviewing the full text in detail, we removed 17 studies for the following reasons: lack of detailed information regarding p16 protein (n = 7); reported the same study (n = 5); conference poster (n = 1); conference abstract (n = 2) ; lack of control information on HPV-negative cases (n = 1); reported genetic alterations of esophageal carcinoma (n = 1). A total of 10 articles involving 235 cases and 750 controls (985 ESCC cases), which were published between 2006 and 2014, were eligible and included in this meta-analysis (18-19-20-21-22-23-24-25-26-27). The process of inclusion and exclusion was performed according to the PRISMA statement (32). The flowchart of the literature selection process is shown in Figure 1.

Fig. 1

Flowchart of the study selection process in the meta-analysis.

Study Characteristics and Quality Assessment

The main characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table I. Of these studies, 6 reported only on high-risk types of human papillomavirus (HR-HPV), i.e., HPV16 or HPV18 (18, 20-21-22, 24, 26). The others focused on multiple HPV types (19, 23, 25, 27). Eight studies were published in English (18-19-20, 23-24-25-26-27) and 2 in Chinese (21, 22). The patients in these studies came from different countries including China (18, 20-21-22, 24, 27), Brazil (23), Japan (19), Pakistan (19), Sweden (25), Colombia (19, 26), and Chile (26). Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples were used to detect HPV DNA by means of PCR or ISH amplification; p16^INK4a expression was detected by IHC.

Table I

Characteristics of the study selection process in the meta-analysis

Reference	Country (region)	HPV detection method	p16^INK4a detection method	HPV types detected	Types of specimen	Definition of p16^INK4a expression	Primer^*	Age of patients		No. of patients (HPV⁺/HPV^-)	Sex of patients (male/female)		Quality assessment^**
								HPV+	HPV-		HPV+	HPV-
Ding et al, 2010 (18)	China (Henan)	PCR	IHC	16	FFPE	Staining in 10%-100% of cells	TS	59.0 ± 7.0	58.0 ± 9.0	17 (8/9)	12/5		6
Castillo et al, 2011 (19)	Japan, Pakistan, Columbia	PCR	IHC	6, 16, 18, 35, 45, 51, 68	FFPE	Staining in 10%-100% of cells	BS, TS	NA	NA	166 (31/135)	118/48		9
Cao et al, 2014 (20)	China (Shandong)	ISH	IHC	16, 18	FFPE	Staining in 50%-100% of cells	-	60	62	105 (29/76)	24/5	60/16	9
Chen et al, 2004 (21)	China (Guangdong)	PCR	IHC	16	FFPE	Staining in 10%-100% of cells	TS	57.1 ± 9.6		30 (14/16)	22/8		7
Jin et al, 2007 (22)	China (Shanghai)	ISH	IHC	16	FFPE	NA	-	53.5 ± 1.4		90 (53/37)	52/38		7
Herbster et al, 2012 (23)	Brazil (south and southeast)	PCR	IHC	16, 18, 66	FFPE	NA	BS	60.3 ± 9.9	58.9 ± 10.1	64 (34/30)	20/7	NA	8
Shuyama et al, 2007 (24)	China (Gansu and Shandong)	PCR	IHC	16, 18	FFPE	Staining in 10%-100% of cells	BS, TS	NA	NA	59 (19/40)	16/3	32/8	9
Löfdahl et al, 2012 (25)	Sweden	PCR	IHC	1, 16, 33, 42, 45, 51, 52, 66, 73, 82	FFPE	NA	BS	NA	NA	204 (20/184)	14/6	113/71	8
Castillo et al, 2006 (26)	Colombia, Chile	PCR	IHC	16, 18	FFPE	Staining in 10%-100% of cells	BS	NA	NA	73 (21/52)	12/9	22/30	9
Teng et al, 2014 (27)	China (east)	PCR	IHC	11, 16, 35	FFPE	Staining in 10%-100% of cells	NA	NA	NA	177 (6/171)	4/2	140/31	6

HPV = human papillomavirus; PCR = polymerase chain reaction; ISH = in situ hybridization; IHC = immunohistochemistry; FFPE = formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples; NA = data not available.

Type-specific (TS) primers (SP16, SP18) which were primers within the E7 ORF, to amplify HPV16 and HPV18, respectively; BS primers mainly included general primers, consensus primers, GP5/6, MY09/11, SPF1, and SPF10.

Quality assessment was judged on the basis of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (1-9 stars) for non-randomized studies.

Table II summarizes the details of quality assessment. The aggregate stars of the included studies ranged from 6 to 9. Six of the 10 studies were identified as high quality, as shown in Table I.

Table II

Quality assessment of non-randomized controlled trials based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scoring system

Reference	Selection			Comparability^*			Exposure
	Is the case definition adequate?	Representativeness of the cases	Selection of controls	Definition of controls	Comparability of cases and controls on the basis of the design or analysis	Ascertainment of exposure	Same method of ascertainment for cases and controls	Non-response rate
Ding et al (18)	✩	✩	-	-	✩	✩	✩	✩
Castillo et al (19)	✩	✩	✩	✩	✩✩	✩	✩	✩
Cao et al (20)	✩	✩	✩	✩	✩✩	✩	✩	✩
Chen et al (21)	✩	✩	-	-	✩✩	✩	✩	✩
Jin et al (22)	✩	✩	-	-	✩✩	✩	✩	✩
Herbster et al (23)	✩	✩	✩	-	✩✩	✩	✩	✩
Shuyama et al (24)	✩	✩	✩	✩	✩✩	✩	✩	✩
Löfdahl et al (25)	✩	✩	✩	-	✩✩	✩	✩	✩
Castillo et al (26)	✩	✩	✩	✩	✩✩	✩	✩	✩
Teng et al (27)	✩	✩	-	-	✩✩	✩	✩	-

A maximum of 2 stars can be given for comparability.

Meta-Analysis Results

Association between p16^INK4a Expression and Overall-HPV-Type Infection in ESCC

Ten studies (18-19-20-21-22-23-24-25-26-27) assessed the potential association between p16^INK4a expression and overall HPV types (types 1, 6, 11, 16, 18, 33, 35, 42, 45, 51, 52, 66, 68, 73 and 82) in ESCC. p16^INK4a was detected in 39.6% of the HPV-positive and 20.5% of the HPV-negative specimens. As there was significant heterogeneity between studies (I² = 82.7%, p<0.0001), the random-effects model was used. As shown in Figure 2A, the pooled analysis showed no significant association between p16^INK4a expression and HPV infection in ESCC based on overall HPV types (OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 0.69-4.66, p = 0.235). To explore the sources of the significant heterogeneity, subgroup analysis was performed by HPV detection method. The results indicated no statistical significance in either the PCR (OR: 1.65, 95% CI: 0.83-3.30, p = 0.154) or ISH group (OR: 2.58, 95% CI: 0.03-268.14, p = 0.689) (Fig. 2B). The result of subgroup analysis can explain only approximately 30% of the heterogeneity.

Fig. 2

Forest plot of the present meta-analysis evaluating the relationship between p16^INK4a expression and HPV in ESCC by means of a random-effects model. (A) Forest plot depicting the relationship between p16^INK4a expression and overall HPV types in ESCC. (B) Subgroup analysis according to HPV detection method (PCR and ISH) on overall HPV types. (C) Forest plot depicting the relationship between p16^INK4a expression and HR-HPV (HPV16 or HPV18) in ESCC. (D) Subgroup analysis according to HPV detection method (PCR and ISH) of high-risk HPV (HPV16 or HPV18) types.

Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the stability of the pooled results. The pooled OR was found to range from 1.27 (95% CI: 0.58-2.84) to 2.32 (95% CI: 0.95-5.64). As shown in Figure 3A, the pooled results were very stable and no single article significantly influenced the pooled OR.

Fig. 3

Sensitivity analyses of the summary odds ratio (ORs) to evaluate the stability of the meta-analysis. Every round indicates the pooled OR when the left study was omitted in the meta-analysis. The lengths of every broken line represent the respective 95% CIs. (A) Sensitivity analysis of the relationship between p16^INK4a expression and overall HPV types in ESCC. (B) Sensitivity analysis of the relationship between p16^INK4a expression and HR-HPV (HPV16 or HPV18) in ESCC.

Association between p16^INK4a Expression and HR-HPV Infection in ESCC

Six studies reported data regarding the relationship between p16^INK4a expression and HR-HPV types (HPV16 or HPV18) in ESCC (18, 20-21-22, 24, 26). In these studies, p16^INK4a was found in 45.1% of the HPV-positive and 37.4% of the HPV-negative specimens. Since significant heterogeneity was identified between studies (I² = 89.6%, p<0.0001), the random-effects model was applied. As shown in Figure 2C, the pooled OR showed no significant relationship between p16^INK4a expression and HR-HPV in ESCC (OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.26-6.59, p = 0.741). Owing to the significant heterogeneity between these studies, subgroup analysis was conducted again based on the HPV detection method to explore the sources of the heterogeneity. As shown in Figure 2D, no significant association between p16^INK4a expression and HR-HPV in ESCC was found in either the PCR (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.25-3.64, p = 0.940) or ISH group (OR: 2.58, 95% CI: 0.03-268.14, p = 0.689).

We conducted sensitivity analysis to assess the influence of each individual study. It indicated that the pooled OR did not vary substantially. As shown in Figure 3B, the pooled OR ranged from 0.69 (95% CI: 0.21-2.22) to 1.89 (95% CI: 0.33-10.86), suggesting that the pooled results were also stable regarding HR-HPV types.

Publication Bias

There was no evidence of any publication bias in our meta-analysis. As shown in Figure 4A and 4B, Begg's funnel plot in evaluating the relationship between p16^INK4a expression and overall HPV types in ESCC was symmetrical (Begg's test p = 0.592), and the Egger test showed a p value of 0.722 (95% CI: -5.16-7.12). Begg's funnel plot in assessing the association between p16^INK4a expression and HR-HPV in ESCC was also symmetrical (Begg's test p = 0.707), and the p value of the Egger test was >0.5 (p = 0.772, 95% CI: -13.41-16.79) (Fig. 4C, 4D). These results attested the absence of any obvious publication biases in the present meta-analysis.

Fig. 4

Begg's funnel plot of the present meta-analysis (A), (C). (A)Begg's funnel plot of the relationship between p16^INK4a expression and overall HPV types in ESCC. (C) Begg's funnel plot of the relationship between p16^INK4a expression and HR-HPV (HPV16 or HPV18) in ESCC. Funnel plot of Egger's test of the present meta-analysis (B, D). (B) Egger's publication bias plot of the relationship between p16^INK4a expression and overall HPV types in ESCC. (D) Egger's publication bias plot of the relationship between p16^INK4a expression and HR-HPV (HPV16 or HPV18) in ESCC.

Discussion

p16^INK4a is widely used as a surrogate marker for screening HPV infection in various squamous cell carcinomas (12, 16, 17, 13-14-15). However, there has been controversy about the detection of HPV in ESCC (18-19-20-21-22-23-24-25-26-27). We performed a meta-analysis of the available published literature regarding the potential association between p16^INK4a expression and HPV-based ESCC. The results clearly ruled out any significant relationship between p16^INK4a and HPV infection in ESCC. Notably, p16^INK4a was not a reliable marker of HPV infection in ESCC.

Overall, p16^INK4a was detected in 39.6% of the HPV-positive and 20.5% of the HPV-negative specimens when all HPV types were included. The result of the pooled OR (1.79, 95% CI: 0.69-4.66) that we obtained from the random-effects analysis strongly indicated there was no association between p16^INK4a expression and HPV infection in ESCC. Additionally, owing to the significant heterogeneity between studies, sensitivity analysis was performed, which showed that the pooled OR was stable and no obvious change occurred when any individual article was omitted.

Numerous methods of HPV detection are used today, but the optimal testing method has yet to be clearly defined. Walline et al (33) conducted a study comparing several commonly used HPV assessment tools and showed that PCR with its low DNA requirement (5 ng) is effective for testing small tissue samples, high throughput screening, fast recognition of HPV types, and has high specificity and sensitivity; ISH on the other hand has high specificity among known HPV-positive tumors but comparatively low sensitivity and can miss HPV-containing tumors as assessed by other methods. Therefore, we performed stratified analyses based on the HPV detection methods. No significant differences were found between the PCR (OR: 1.65, 95% CI: 0.83-3.30, p = 0.154) and ISH groups (OR: 2.58, 95% CI: 0.03-268.14, p = 0.689).

More than 130 HPV types have been identified to date and these types have been classified into high-risk and low-risk genotypes (34). Previous studies showed that HR-HPV types, especially HPV16 and HPV18, were most strongly associated with ESCC (35-36-37-38). As mentioned previously, only 6 studies in our meta-analysis investigated whether HPV16/18 affected p16^INK4a expression, and found p16^INK4a in 45.1% of the HR-HPV-positive and 37.4% of the HR-HPV-negative specimens. Therefore, we also evaluated the relationship between p16^INK4a expression and HPV16/18 infection in ESCC. When we conducted a subgroup analysis by HPV detection method, we found no statistical significance in either the PCR group or ISH group. Sensitivity analysis by omitting individual studies alternately indicated that the pooled OR was very stable. Furthermore, the quality of the included studies was judged adequate and the tests did not identify any publication bias, which indicated that the pooled results’ bias is probably negligible. All these observations support and strengthen our findings.

In 2013, Michaelsen et al (39) conducted a systematic review of the role of p16^INK4a as a marker of transcriptionally active HPV in ESCC and the regional prevalence of HPV in ESCC. They collected 8 articles that were published between 2006 and 2012. In a pooled analysis with Fisher's exact test for the 8 studies providing p16^INK4a data on both HPV-positive and HPV-negative specimens, the sensitivity of p16^INK4a expression as a marker of HPV DNA was 0.35 and the specificity 0.67 (39). In comparison, 10 articles published between 2006 and 2014 were included in our study, with 985 ESCC specimens collected from more than 12 different countries or regions. A random-effects model was used to pool the OR to estimate the association between p16^INK4a expression and HPV infection in ESCC. Our study first investigated the relationship between p16^INK4a expression and HPV infection in ESCC through meta-analysis. Moreover, we assessed the influence of overall HPV types and HR-HPV on p16^INK4a expression in ESCC. Additionally, we used the PRISMA checklist to improve the standardization of the present study and provide the detailed selection process of our meta-analysis. Collectively, neither overall HPV nor HR-HPV was related to p16^INK4a expression in ESCC.

There are some limitations to the present analysis that need to be acknowledged. First, DNA was extracted from FFPE samples in the majority of the included studies. It is well known that FFPE tissues are a highly valuable source of genetic material for molecular analysis, but frequently genetic material in those samples is highly degraded, which influences the PCR amplication (40). Thus, it may be challenging to extract a sufficient number of DNA fragments and reduce the HPV positivity rate. Second, there was marked heterogeneity among the included studies, which might be explained by variations in the study population, geographic location, types of specimens and primers, and HPV detection method. To address this issue, we adopted the random-effects model to combine data and performed a meta-analysis stratified by HPV detection method. However, considerable heterogeneity remained when we performed subgroup analyses by HPV detection method. In addition, sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the stability of the pooled OR and the pooled OR proved very stable. Third, we could not exclude confounders that may affect the HPV prevalence in ESCC cases because few of the included studies provided information on confounders such as age, sex difference, smoking, alcohol consumption, financial situation, level of education, lifestyle and diet. Finally, we did not perform subgroup analyses by geographic location, study population, specimen type, and type of primers because several studies did not provide sufficient information. Further studies should focus on these issues and we will conduct further research to obtain more information on these aspects.

In conclusion, our results demonstrated no significant association between p16^INK4a expression and HPV infection in ESCC, and showed that p16^INK4a is not a reliable screening marker in HPV-associated ESCC. Most importantly, this meta-analysis provides useful information and important evidence for the diagnosis of HPV infection in ESCC in the future. However, further multicenter, large-sample and well-matched prospective studies are still required to illuminate the possible etiological roles of HPV in ESCC.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

We are grateful to Zhi-Qiang Lu (School of Life Sciences, Lanzhou University, Gansu Province, China) for his advice on study design and data analysis.

Financial support: The study was not supported by any sources.

Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

Fitzmaurice

Dicker

Pain

et al; Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration. The global burden of cancer 2013. JAMA Oncol 2015;1(4):505–527

Torre

Bray

Siegel

Ferlay

Lortet-Tieulent

Jemal

Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2015;65(2):87–108

Liyanage

Rahman

Ridda

. The aetiological role of human papillomavirus in oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2013;8(7):e69238

Ronco

Giorgi-Rossi

Carozzi

et al; New Technologies for Cervical Cancer screening (NTCC) Working Group. Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11(3):249–257

Rijkaart

Berkhof

Rozendaal

. Human papillomavirus testing for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer: final results of the POBASCAM randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2012;13(1):78–88

Ronco

Dillner

Elfström

et al; International HPV Screening Working Group. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2014;383(9916):524–532

Ang

Sturgis

Human papillomavirus as a marker of the natural history and response to therapy of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Semin Radiat Oncol 2012;22(2):128–142

Ang

Harris

Wheeler

. Human papillomavirus and survival of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;363(1):24–35

Chaturvedi

Anderson

Lortet-Tieulent

. Worldwide trends in incidence rates for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. J Clin Oncol 2013;31(36):4550–4559

10.

Syrjänen

Pyrhönen

Aukee

Koskela

Squamous cell papilloma of the esophagus: a tumour probably caused by human papilloma virus (HPV). Diagn Histopathol 1982;5(4):291–296

11.

Leemans

Braakhuis

Brakenhoff

The molecular biology of head and neck cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2011;11(1):9–22

12.

Marur

D'Souza

Westra

Forastiere

HPV-associated head and neck cancer: a virus-related cancer epidemic. Lancet Oncol 2010;11(8):781–789

13.

Lewis

Jr p16 Immunohistochemistry as a standalone test for risk stratification in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck Pathol 2012;6(Suppl 1):S75–S82

14.

Rietbergen

Leemans

Bloemena

. Increasing prevalence rates of HPV attributable oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas in the Netherlands as assessed by a validated test algorithm. Int J Cancer 2013;132(7):1565–1571

15.

Fischer

Kampmann

Zlobec

. p16 expression in oropharyngeal cancer: its impact on staging and prognosis compared with the conventional clinical staging parameters. Ann Oncol 2010;21(10):1961–1966

16.

Gustinucci

Passamonti

Cesarini

. Role of p16(INK4a) cytology testing as an adjunct to enhance the diagnostic specificity and accuracy in human papillomavirus-positive women within an organized cervical cancer screening program. Acta Cytol 2012;56(5):506–514

17.

Gustinucci

Giorgi Rossi

Cesarini

. Use of cytology, E6/E7 mRNA, and p16INK4a-Ki-67 to define the management of human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive women in cervical cancer screening. Am J Clin Pathol 2016;145(1):35–45

18.

Ding

Ren

Chang

. Human papillomavirus DNA and P16(^INK4A) expression in concurrent esophageal and gastric cardia cancers. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16(46):5901–5906

19.

Castillo

Koriyama

Higashi

. Human papillomavirus in upper digestive tract tumors from three countries. World J Gastroenterol 2011;17(48):5295–5304

20.

Cao

Zhang

Han

Cheng

Prognostic significance of high-risk human papillomavirus and p16(INK4A) in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014;7(10):3430–3438

21.

Chen

Zhou

[Effect of HPV16 infection on the esophageal carcinoma and the gene expressions of P53 and P16]. Chin J Lab Diagn 2004;8(2):182–185 [Article in Chinese].

22.

Jin

Cao

[Expression and effect of human papillomavirus in esophageal carcinoma]. Chin J Gastroenterol 2007;12(1):36–39 [Article in Chinese].

23.

Herbster

Ferraro

CTL

Koff

. HPV infection in Brazilian patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: interpopulational differences, lack of correlation with surrogate markers and clinicopathological parameters. Cancer Lett 2012;326(1):52–58

24.

Shuyama

Castillo

Aguayo

. Human papillomavirus in high- and low-risk areas of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China. Br J Cancer 2007;96(10):1554–1559

25.

Löfdahl

Näsman

. Prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) in oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in relation to anatomical site of the tumour. PLoS One 2012;7(10):e46538

26.

Castillo

Aguayo

Koriyama

. Human papillomavirus in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in Colombia and Chile. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12(38):6188–6192

27.

Teng

Liu

Zhang

The absence of human papillomavirus in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in East China. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2014;7(7):4184–4193

28.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010;8(5):336–341

29.

Stang

Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010;25(9):603–605

30.

Higgins

Thompson

Deeks

Altman

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557–560

31.

Tufanaru

Munn

Stephenson

Aromataris

Fixed or random effects meta-analysis? Common methodological issues in systematic reviews of effectiveness. Int J Evid-Based Healthc 2015;13(3):196–207

32.

Knobloch

Yoon

Vogt

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and publication bias. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2011;39(2):91–92

33.

Walline

Komarck

McHugh

. High-risk human papillomavirus detection in oropharyngeal, nasopharyngeal, and oral cavity cancers: comparison of multiple methods. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013;139(12):1320–1327

34.

Zandberg

Bhargava

Badin

Cullen

The role of human papillomavirus in nongenital cancers. CA Cancer J Clin 2013;63(1):57–81

35.

Chen

. Human papillomavirus type 16 infection may be involved in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma carcinogenesis in Chinese Kazakh patients. Dis Esophagus 2013;26(7):703–707

36.

Guo

Liu

Wang

. Human papillomavirus infection and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012;21(5):780–785

37.

Liyanage

Segelov

Garland

. Role of human papillomaviruses in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2013;9(1):12–28

38.

Antonsson

Nancarrow

Brown

et al; Australian Cancer Study. High-risk human papillomavirus in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19(8):2080–2087

39.

Michaelsen

Larsen

von Buchwald

Human papillomavirus shows highly variable prevalence in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and no significant correlation to p16^INK4a overexpression: a systematic review. J Thorac Oncol 2014;9(6):865–871

40.

Daugaard

Kjeldsen

Hager

Hansen

Wojdacz

The influence of DNA degradation in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue on locus-specific methylation assessment by MS-HRM. Exp Mol Pathol 2015;99(3):632–640

P16 INK4a is not a Reliable Screening Marker of HPV Infection in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and methods

Search Strategy

Eligibility Criteria

Data Extraction

Quality Assessment

Statistical Analysis

Results

Search Results

Study Characteristics and Quality Assessment

Meta-Analysis Results

Association between p16INK4a Expression and Overall-HPV-Type Infection in ESCC

Association between p16INK4a Expression and HR-HPV Infection in ESCC

Publication Bias

Discussion

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

References

Association between p16^INK4a Expression and Overall-HPV-Type Infection in ESCC

Association between p16^INK4a Expression and HR-HPV Infection in ESCC