Loss of heterozygosity of D9S162: molecular predictor for treatment response in oral carcinoma.

Inspite of improvements in treatment regimen of oral cancer, locoregional recurrence rates and overall mortality have remained unchanged over the years. This study therefore focused on microsatellite alterations in 9p21 loci, as a possible molecular prognostic marker in oral cancer and to identify the correlation between allelic imbalance, if any, with the recurrence in oral cancer. Eighty-one patients, treated with radiation or combination of surgery with radiotherapy/chemotherapy, were investigated for LOH/MSI at the 9p21 locus using microsatellite assay. Correlations between allelic alterations and prognostic outcomes were assessed. LOH was noted at D9S161 (56%), followed by D9S162 (31%). Both markers were found to be associated with decreased recurrence free survival, D9S162 showed a significant association with overall survival as well. Only LOH at D9S162 was an independent predictor of recurrence free survival and overall survival. Patients positive for LOH at D9S162 were 6 times more likely to experience recurrence than those without LOH irrespective of treatment modality. LOH at D9S162 is a significant molecular alteration in oral carcinoma with unfavorable repercussions for recurrence and overall survival.

Influence of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase polymorphisms in oral cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) is a key enzyme in folate metabolism. Two common polymorphisms associated with MTHFR gene - C677T and A1298C - influence the thermolabile nature and activity of the enzyme. This study aimed to investigate the role of MTHFR polymorphisms on oral cancer susceptibility and its potential impact on the prognostic outcome. METHODS: Oral cancer cases and controls were genotyped using PCR-RFLP technique for MTHFR C677T and A1298C polymorphisms. Disease susceptibility analysed using regression analysis. The association between clinical outcomes and the polymorphisms were analysed using univariate and multivariate model. RESULTS: The 677CT+TT genotype showed a significant three-fold reduction in oral cancer risk (RR-0.35, p-0.009). 1298CC genotype showed decreased cancer risk when compared to AA+AC genotype (RR-0.55, p-0.062). When prognostic significance of MTHFR polymorphism was evaluated, 677CT+TT patients showed improved survival than the CC individuals (RR = 0.56, P = 0.378). The 1298 CC and AC+CC showed an increased risk for treatment failure and poor survival when compared with the wild AA genotype (HR = 4.27, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Here we observed MTHFR C677T to influence oral cancer susceptibility, while A1298C polymorphism associated with patient prognosis. Our data support MTHFR polymorphism to be an independent prognostic marker in oral carcinoma.

Differential roles of p16INK4A and p14ARF genes in prognosis of oral carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Oral cancer patients are found to have poor clinical outcome and high disease recurrence rate, in spite of an aggressive treatment regimen. The inactivation of INK4A/ARF loci is reported to be second to p53 inactivation in human cancers. The purpose of this study was to assess the prognostic significance of the molecular aberrations in the INK4A locus for effective identification of aggressive oral carcinoma cases needing alternate therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study composed of 116 patients freshly diagnosed with oral carcinoma. The genetic and epigenetic status of the p16(INK4A) and p14(ARF) genes was evaluated. The relation between these genic alterations and different treatment end points, such as residual disease (initial response), disease recurrence, and overall survival, along with the standard clinical markers, were analyzed. RESULTS: 62% of the study cases had p16(INK4A) gene abnormalities, with deletion accounting for 33% and methylation for 29%. Alterations in p14(ARF) gene either by deletion (12%) and/or methylation (18%) were observed in 30% of the cases. p16(INK4A) deletion was associated with aggressive tumors, as evidenced by the nodal involvement of the disease. Low or absence of p16(INK4A) protein adversely affected the initial treatment response. Promoter methylation of p16(INK4A) was associated with increased disease recurrence and acts as an independent predictor for worse prognosis. Surprisingly, p14(ARF) methylation associated with lower recurrence rate in oral cancer patients with a good clinical outcome. Overall survival of these patients was associated with tumor size, nodal disease, and p16(INK4A) protein expression pattern. Our results indicate that p16(INK4A) and p14(ARF) alterations constitute a major molecular abnormality in oral cancer cases. CONCLUSION: The molecular profile of INK4A/ARF locus, both at DNA and protein level, could be used as a prognostic biomarker for assessing the aggressiveness of disease in oral carcinoma patients. The study further shows the opposing clinical effect of these two genes, transcribed from the same locus, in oral cancer patients.

Carcinoma of tongue and the buccal mucosa represent different biological subentities of the oral carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Clinico-epidemiological studies show that the behaviour of the tongue cancer is different from the cancer originating at other sites of the oral cavity. However, studies identifying the reason for such difference are lacking in the literature. METHODS: In the present study, we have attempted to see whether any difference existed in the cell cycle regulatory mechanism of these tumours by comparing immunohistochemically the expression of major cell cycle regulatory proteins in 147 buccal and 94 tongue carcinoma (anterior two-third of tongue) prospectively. RESULTS: On comparison of buccal and tongue carcinoma, expression of p16 and p21 showed significant difference. In combined analysis, simultaneous down regulation of p16 and p21 was seen in 47% of tongue cancer cases as against 28% in buccal carcinoma (P=0.004). In univariate analysis, none of the clinico-biological variables studied showed significant association with survival in tongue carcinoma, whereas, some of the clinico-biological variables associated with survival in buccal carcinoma. Among the biological markers, the overexpression of cyclin D1 (P=0.007) and p53, detected using both the clones of antibodies-DO7 (P=0.008) and PAb240 (P=0.014) and the down regulation of p16 (0.033), showed significant association with shorter disease free survival (DFS) in these cases. Whereas in the case of overall survival (OS), overexpression of p53 [DO7 (P=0.031) and PAb240 (P=0.017)] and cyclin D1 (P=0.001) associated with poor survival. In multivariate analysis, the expression pattern of p53 and p16 protein influences the DFS whereas cyclin D1 expression showed independent association with the OS in buccal carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, tongue and buccal cancers represent different biological subentities, and such differences should be considered in oral cancer management.