Prognostic Role of p16 in Nonoropharyngeal Head and Neck Cancer.

Background: Previous studies have reported conflicting information regarding the prognostic role of p16 in nonoropharyngeal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Methods: Using the US Veterans Affairs database, we analyzed 1448 patients with locoregionally advanced HNSCC and known p16 status diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 and treated with surgery, radiotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy. Tumor p16 status was determined through manual review of pathology reports of primary tumor specimens. Oropharyngeal (n = 1061) or nonoropharyngeal (n = 387; hypopharyngeal, laryngeal, or oral cavity) tumor site was determined from tumor registry data and manually reviewed for accuracy. We used multivariable Cox regression to analyze the effect of p16 status on overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and competing mortality (CM) for oropharyngeal or nonoropharyngeal tumor sites. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: In multivariable models adjusting for treatment, stage, age, comorbidity, and body mass index, patients with p16-positive tumors had improved OS, CSS, and CM compared with patients with p16-negative tumors in both oropharyngeal (OS: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.40 to 0.71, P < .001; CSS: HR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.73, P < .001; CM: HR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.38 to 0.93, P = .02) and nonoropharyngeal primary sites (OS: HR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.25 to 0.69, P < .001; CSS: HR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.18 to 0.77, P = .008; CM: HR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.95, P = .04). The prognostic impact of p16 status did not statistically significantly differ by primary tumor site for OS, CSS, or CM (Pinteraction > .05). Conclusions: Our findings support the hypothesis that p16 has a similar prognostic role in both nonoropharyngeal and oropharyngeal cancer. Consideration should be given to increased testing for p16 in laryngeal, hypopharyngeal, and oral cavity primaries.

Comparison of Comorbidity and Frailty Indices in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer Using an Online Tool.

PURPOSE: Comorbidity is an independent predictor of mortality and treatment tolerance in head and neck cancer and should be considered with regard to treatment intensification. Multiple previously validated models can be used to evaluate comorbidity and propensity to benefit from intensive treatment, but they have not been directly compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online tool was developed and used to calculate the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27 (ACE-27), Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G), Geriatric 8 (G8), Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG), and Generalized Competing Event (GCE) scores. To assess interrater variability, five evaluators independently calculated scores on a retrospective cohort of 20 patients. Correlation between models as well as age and performance status were calculated from a cohort of 40 patients. RESULTS: The GCE and G8 models had an excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient and Fleiss' kappa ≥ 0.75) degree of interrater agreement. The CCI, ACE-27, CIRS-G, and CARG had a good (intraclass correlation coefficient and Fleiss' kappa 0.6-0.74) degree of interrater agreement. There was statistically significant correlation between models, especially with the CCI, ACE-27, and CIRS-G indices. Increased age was correlated with an increased CCI score and having moderate to severe comorbidity was correlated with the ACE-27 model. Except for the G8 model, the comorbidity indices were not associated with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. CONCLUSION: We developed an online tool to calculate indices of comorbidity in patients with head and neck cancer with a high degree of reproducibility. Comorbidity is not strongly correlated with performance status and should be independently evaluated in patients.