Search

Background: The incidence of oropharyngeal and oral tongue cancers has increased over the last 20 years which parallels increased use of marijuana among individuals born after 1950. Methods: A pooled analysis was conducted comprising individual-level data from nine case–control studies from the United States and Latin America in the INHANCE consortium. Self-reported information on marijuana smoking, demographic, and behavioral factors was obtained from 1,921 oropharyngeal cases, 356 oral tongue cases, and 7,639 controls. Results: Compared with never marijuana smokers, ever marijuana smokers had an elevated risk of oropharyngeal [adjusted OR (aOR), 1.24; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06–1.47] and a reduced risk of oral tongue cancer (aOR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29, 0.75). The risk of oropharyngeal cancer remained elevated among never tobacco and alcohol users. The risk of oral tongue cancer was reduced among never users of tobacco and alcohol. Sensitivity analysis adjusting for potential confounding by HPV exposure attenuated the association of marijuana use with oropharyngeal cancer (aOR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.71–1.25), but had no effect on the oral tongue cancer association. Conclusions: These results suggest that the association of marijuana use with head and neck carcinoma may differ by tumor site. Impact: The associations of marijuana use with oropharyngeal and oral tongue cancer are consistent with both possible pro- and anticarcinogenic effects of cannabinoids. Additional work is needed to rule out various sources of bias, including residual confounding by HPV infection and misclassification of marijuana exposure. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(1); 160–71. ©2013 AACR.

Background: The magnitude of risk conferred by the interaction between tobacco and alcohol use on the risk of head and neck cancers is not clear because studies have used various methods to quantify the excess head and neck cancer burden. Methods: We analyzed individual-level pooled data from 17 European and American case-control studies (11,221 cases and 16,168 controls) participating in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology consortium. We estimated the multiplicative interaction parameter (ψ) and population attributable risks (PAR). Results: A greater than multiplicative joint effect between ever tobacco and alcohol use was observed for head and neck cancer risk (ψ = 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.53-3.04). The PAR for tobacco or alcohol was 72% (95% confidence interval, 61-79%) for head and neck cancer, of which 4% was due to alcohol alone, 33% was due to tobacco alone, and 35% was due to tobacco and alcohol combined. The total PAR differed by subsite (64% for oral cavity cancer, 72% for pharyngeal cancer, 89% for laryngeal cancer), by sex (74% for men, 57% for women), by age (33% for cases 60 years), and by region (84% in Europe, 51% in North America, 83% in Latin America). Conclusions: Our results confirm that the joint effect between tobacco and alcohol use is greater than multiplicative on head and neck cancer risk. However, a substantial proportion of head and neck cancers cannot be attributed to tobacco or alcohol use, particularly for oral cavity cancer and for head and neck cancer among women and among young-onset cases. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(2):541–50)

Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a risk factor for head and neck cancers (HNC), yet HPV-associated tumors have better prognosis than HPV-negative tumors. Methods: We evaluated whether pretreatment presence of antibodies to HPV capsids [virus-like particles (VLP)] or to HPV-16 oncoproteins E6 and E7 was a predictor of HPV-positive HNC and clinical outcomes. Sera from 156 HNC patients were tested for antibodies to HPV-16–derived antigens using ELISA. HPV-16 in tumors was evaluated by PCR and DNA sequencing. Results: HPV-16 antibodies were found in 33% with HPV-16 VLP, 21% with HPV-16 E6, and 21% with E7. HPV-16 was detected in 26% of tumors. There was a strong correlation between detection of HPV-16 tumor DNA and antibodies to HPV-16 E6 or E7 (κ = 0.7) but not to HPV-16 VLP (κ = 0.4). Multivariate analyses showed significantly better disease-specific survival in seropositive HPV-16 VLP [hazard ratio (HR), 0.4; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.1-0.9], HPV-16 E6 (HR, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.02-0.5), and HPV-16 E7 (HR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.9) cases. Less disease recurrence occurred among those with antibodies to both E6 and E7 compared with those negative to both (P = 0.003). There was better disease-specific survival in patients who were E6 positive at baseline and remained positive at follow-up compared with individuals who were E6 negative at both time points (P = 0.03; κ = 0.9). Conclusions: The presence of antibodies to HPV-16 E6 and E7 is associated with HPV in tumor cells and with better clinical outcomes. These findings suggest that the presence of E6/E7 antibodies before treatment is predictive of better clinical outcomes and that they may serve as biomarkers for selecting targeted therapeutic modalities developed for HPV-associated tumors. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(8):2087–96)

Background: High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV-HR) is a significant risk factor for head and neck cancer (HNC), abrogating normal p53 function. In addition, HPV and p53 have been associated with prognosis of these tumors but the findings have been inconsistent. We examined p53 expression and HPV-HR individually and jointly for differences in predicting HNC survival. Methods: HNC patients (n = 294) were evaluated for p53 by immunohistochemical staining. HPV was detected by PCR/dot blot hybridization and sequencing. Results: HNC tumors showed 48% with p53 overexpression and 27% with HPV-HR. Multivariate analyses showed that p53 positivity was significantly associated with higher risk of disease-specific [hazard ratio (HR); 2.0; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.1-3.7] and recurrence-free mortality (HR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.4-5.3). HPV− cases had significantly worse disease-specific survival (HR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-6.3) compared with HPV-HR cases. When analyzed jointly, with p53−/HPV-HR tumors as the reference group, p53+/HPV− patients had the worst disease-specific (HR, 5.3; 58% versus 15%, P = 0.006) and recurrence-free survival rates (HR, 9.5; 17% versus 89%, P = 0.001), in contrast to the p53−/HPV− and p53+/HPV-HR groups, which had less elevated and different risks for disease-specific survival (HR, 2.5 and 1.7, respectively) and recurrence-free survival (HR, 4.2 and 7.2, respectively). Conclusion: Joint assessment of p53/HPV status provides different HRs for each clinical outcome in the four biomarker groups that are distinct from the individual biomarkers. These findings suggest that joint assessment of p53/HPV provides a better indicator of prognosis and potentially different types of treatments. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(2):421–7)

In order to examine the association between alcohol dehydrogenase 3 (ADH3) genotypes and risk of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC), we conducted a hospital based case-control study including 348 cases and 330 controls. DNA isolated from exfoliated cells from the oral cavity were genotyped for ADH3 polymorphisms using PCR followed by SspI digestion. Odds ratios (OR) and hazards ratios (HR) were done by unconditional logistic regression and Cox regression. Relative to ADH32-2 carriers, ADH31-1 [OR, 0.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.4-1.1] and ADH31-2 (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.2) had a nonsignificant reduced risk of HNSCC. ADH1-2 smokers of >30 pack-years were at decreased risk of oral cavity squamous cell carcinomas compared with ADH32-2 (OR, 0.3, 0.1-0.9), whereas ADH31-1 smokers were not. After adjustment, those with ADH31-2 had significantly worse overall survival compared with ADH31-1 (HR, 0.3, 0.2-0.6) or ADH32-2 (HR, 0.4, 0.2-0.9) and increased recurrence (ADH31-1, 0.2, 0.1-0.6; ADH32-2, 0.6, 0.2-1.3). Our data did not show that ADH3 genotypes had a significantly independent effect on the risk of HNSCC, nor did they modify the risks increased by alcohol or tobacco consumption and high-risk human papillomavirus infection. However, participants with ADH31-2 genotype were associated with poorer survival compared with those who had the other two ADH3 genotypes and a higher rate of recurrence than participants with ADH31-1 genotype.