Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

The landscape of circulating tumor HPV DNA and TTMV-HPVDNA for surveillance of HPV-oropharyngeal carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research volume 43, Article number: 215 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Human papilloma virus (HPV) related cancers of the oropharynx are rapidly increasing in incidence and may soon represent the majority of all head and neck cancers. Improved monitoring and surveillance methods are thus an urgent need in public health.

Main text

The goal is to highlight the current potential and limitations of liquid biopsy through a meta analytic study on ctHPVDNA and TTMV-HPVDNA. It was performed a Literature search on articles published until December 2023 using three different databases: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Studies that evaluated post-treatment ctHPVDNA and TTMV-HPVDNA in patients with HPV + OPSCC, studies reporting complete data on the diagnostic accuracy in recurrence, or in which the number of true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives was extractable, and methods of detection of viral DNA clearly defined.

The meta-analysis was conducted following the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guidelines.

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ctHPVDNA and TTMV by ddPCR to define its efficacy in clinical setting for the follow up of HPV-OPSCC.

Conclusion

The 12 studies included in the meta-analysis provided a total of 1311 patients for the analysis (398 valuated with ctHPVDNA and 913 with TTMV-HPVDNA). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 86% (95% CI: 78%-91%) and 96% (95% CI: 91%-99%), respectively; negative and positive likelihood ratios were 0.072 (95% CI: 0.057–0.093) and 24.7 (95% CI: 6.5–93.2), respectively; pooled DOR was 371.66 (95% CI: 179.1–918). The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.67–0.91).

Liquid biopsy for the identification of cell free DNA might identify earlier recurrence in HPV + OPSCC patients. At the present time, liquid biopsy protocol needs to be standardized and liquid biopsy cannot yet be used in clinical setting. In the future, a multidimensional integrated approach which links multiple clinical, radiological, and laboratory data will contribute to obtain the best follow-up strategies for the follow-up of HPV-OPSCC.

Introduction

Incidence of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) is rising exponentially in high-income countries [1], despite the decreased exposure to classic risk factors associated with the development of head neck cancers, namely cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption. This epidemiological trend can be attributed to an epidemic spread of high-risk oncogenic Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infection, a well-known risk factor for the development of oropharyngeal squamous cells carcinoma [2]. Of the over 200 genotypes currently known, 13 are associated with the development of neoplastic pathology in humans. Among these, the most well-known and studied is the HPV-16, which is responsible for almost 90% of these cases [3]. The increase in incidence of HPV + OPSCC is so exponential that the number of men affected by HPV-OPSCC has surpassed the number of women affected by HPV-related cervical carcinoma, making OPSCC the most commonly HPV-related cancer in industrialized countries [4].

Despite the ongoing evolution of treatment modalities with the introduction of robotic surgery, the diagnostic workup has not evolved for several years [5].

Regarding follow-up, the current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines indicate the execution of imaging at baseline after treatment and clinical assessment at regular intervals for a minimum of five years. Positron emission tomography (PET) at 3 months after completion of chemoradiation is considered standard of care [6]. However, over time, several critical issues have emerged regarding this surveillance modality. For instance, it has been highlighted that the use of PET scans in post-radio chemotherapy treatment is characterized by a high number of false positives [7,8,9]. PET-CTs have a poor positive predictive value of 30% on 12 week surveillance for HPV-OPSCC [10]. A recent meta-analysis highlighted that PET-CT results were equivocal for 22.5% (95% CI, 12.5–36.9) and equivocal/positive for 34.2% of patients (95% CI, 25.1–44.5) [11].

Even when combining this method with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), distinguishing between disease persistence and normal post-treatment metabolic response remains complicated [9, 12, 13]. Furthermore, the use of cyto/histological typing through fine needle aspiration in these cases is characterized by a failure rate of approximately 30% [14, 15].

The use of multiple visits leads to increased costs for the national healthcare system and the development of anxiety and depression for the patients [16].

On the other hand, an early and precise disease diagnosis coupled with a timely treatment is likely associated with better overall survival [17].

Due to this gray area in the diagnostic workup, the search for new biomarkers has risen over the years, and an increasing number of studies are investigating the utility of liquid biopsy at diagnosis and during follow up. In detail, circulating tumor HPVDNA (ctHPVDNA) and circulating tumor tissue–modified viral HPV DNA (TTMV-HPVDNA) are emerging as promising biomarkers to improve clinical decision- making in the care of OPSCC patients.

Although several academic groups have developed research- grade circulating tumor HPV DNA (ctHPVDNA) assays, the first commercial ctHPVDNA assay, based on detection of circulating tu- mor tissue–modified viral HPV DNA (TTMV-HPV DNA), became available in the USA in 2020 and allowed for wide- spread clinical practice to this technology [18].

Previous meta-analyses demonstrated that digital drop PCR (ddPCR) for ctHPVDNA has good accuracy, sensitivity and specificity for first diagnosis of HPV-related OPSCC [19].

However, a recent narrative review on TTMV-HPVDNA and ctHPVDNA development for early detection of cancer recurrence highlights existing knowledge gaps and suggests research that should be prioritized to understand the association between biomarker-based surveillance and patient outcomes [18].

In this setting we elaborate a systematic review and meta-analytic study on ctHPVDNA and TTMV-HPVDNA, to highlight the current potential and limitations of liquid biopsy.

Thus, the aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ctHPV DNA and TTMV by ddPCR to define its efficacy in the clinical setting for the follow up of HPV-OPSCC.

Materials and methods

Systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE).

Study eligibility criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) studies that evaluated post-treatment ctHPVDNA and TTMV-HPVDNA in patients with HPV + OPSCC, 2) studies reporting complete data on the diagnostic accuracy in recurrence, or in which the number of true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives was extractable, 3) methods of detection of viral DNA clearly defined.

The exclusion criteria were: 1) incomplete data on the patients’ follow up; 2) non-original studies (i.e., reviews). Peer-reviewed publications in English were included, with no restrictions to the publication year.

Search strategy

Authors conducted a literature search on articles published until December 2023 using three different databases: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library searching for studies examining the diagnostic performance of ctHPVDNA and TTMV during follow up in patients with HPV-related OPSCC (Supporting Table 1).

Table 1 Main features of the included studies
Full size table

The articles were surveyed applying the selection criteria on the title and abstract (phase 1) and then on the full text of those deemed appropriate after the first analysis (phase 2). In addition, a manual search was conducted for references from the selected studies. Duplicate abstracts were carefully removed.

Data extraction

A standardized electronic data collection form was used independently by two reviewers (FC, CM) to extract the data from each of the included studies such as the first author’s name, year of publication, study design, country, number of patients, cancer site, HPV status of cancer, number of pretreatment blood tests, HPV status in blood and method for the detection of viral DNA.

The extracted outcomes about the diagnostic accuracy of ctHPVDNA as a detection test for disease progression in patients affected by HPV-positive HNSCC were the number of true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives.

Statistical analysis

A diagnostic random effects meta-analysis was carried out using the DerSimonian-Laird method. The pooled sensitivity and specificity, the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated. Results were reported with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for all the analyses. A correction factor of 0.5 for “0” events was applied. A subgroup meta-analysis was also executed dividing the studies in two groups according to the diagnostic method used, ctHPV DNA or TTMV HPV DNA. All the analyses were performed using R software for statistical computing (R 2.10.1; “meta” and “mada” package).

Risk of bias

The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies second edition (QUADAS-2) was applied to calculate the potential risk of bias and quality of included studies. The seven items of QUADAS-2 checklist were scored in all included articles. The risk of bias was rated high (H), low (L), or unclear (U) according to the QUADAS-2.

Results

Study selection

The preliminary search, according to the scheme defined, led to the identification of 438 articles. After the removal of duplicates, 189 articles were detected. All the 189 publication were screened in title and abstract and 49 papers were revised in full text. No other relevant articles were identified from the reference screening. Twelve articles, published between 2019 and 2023, fully met the inclusion criteria for the statistical analysis [20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 29, 31,32,33].

Probes for HPV cDNA detection by ddPCR

All studies used droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and all studies extracted circulating tumour DNA from plasma. Clinical and demographical data is reported in Table 1. Primers/probes used by the studies included were different, as showed in Table 2.

Table 2 Main features of liquid biopsy test
Full size table

ctHPVDNA meta analysis for diagnostic accuracy in OPSCC

The 12 studies included in the meta-analysis provided a total of 1311 patients for the analysis. The meta-analytic study estimated diagnostic performance of ctHPVDNA and TTMV during follow up as follows: pooled sensitivity and specificity of 86% (95% CI: 78%-91%) and 96% (95% CI: 91%-99%) (Fig. 1), respectively; negative and positive likelihood ratios of 0.072 (95% CI: 0.057–0.093) and 24.7 (95% CI: 6.5–93.2) (Fig. 2), respectively; pooled DOR of 371.66 (95% CI: 179.1–918.1) (Fig. 3). HSROC curve is presented as a supplementary figure ( Fig. 4). The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.67–0.91).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Diagnostic accuracy of ctHPVDNA and TTMV-HPVDNA displayed by forest plots estimating (A) sensitivity, B specify during follow up in patients with HPV + OPSCC (confidence interval (CI) in brackets)

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Diagnostic accuracy of ctHPVDNA and TTMV-HPVDNA displayed by forest plots estimating positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) during follow up in patients with HPV + OPSCC (confidence interval (CI) in brackets)

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Diagnostic accuracy of ctHPVDNA and TTMV-HPVDNA displayed by forest plots estimating diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) during follow up in patients with HPV + OPSCC (confidence interval (CI) in brackets)

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

HSROC curve: the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.81 (95% CI 0.67–0.93)

Full size image

The subgroup meta-analysis did not show a statistically significant difference among the ctHPVDNA and the TTMV-DNA subgroup both regarding sensitivity and specificity. The ctHPVDNA subgroup sensitivity was 82.9% (95% CI 68.2–91.6) while the TTMV-DNA was 89.7% (95% CI 72.2–96.7), p > 0.05. The ctHPVDNA subgroup specificity was 94.8% (95% CI 91.4–97.0) while the TTMV-DNA was 96.4% (95% CI 91.1–98.6), p > 0.05.

Qualitative assessment

Quality assessment based on the QUADAS-2 is shown in Table 2s, and the overall risk of bias was rated low. Included studies fulfilled the items “patient selection”, “index test”, “reference standard”, and “flow and timing” of the risk of the bias section and all three items of the applicability concerns section (“patient selection”, “index test”, and “reference standard”).

Discussion

Former meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of liquid biopsy with the research of cell free DNA revealed that this technology is improving diagnostic protocol for several cancer including gastric cancer [34], lung cancer [35] and Head and Neck cancer [19, 36]. To the best our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis exploring the accuracy of ctHPVDNA and TTMV-HPVDNA by ddPCR in patients with HPV + OPSCC during follow up. This meta-analysis analyzed outcomes from 1311 HPV + OPSCC patients: 398 valuated with ctHPVDNA and 913 with TTMV-HPVDNA. The results of the present meta-analysis indicate that the ctHPVDNA and TTMV-HPVDNA tests have the potential to be good diagnostic tools during follow-up. The goodness of a diagnostic test is based on multiple outcomes. First of all, the sensitivity and specificity values, followed by the likelihood ratio, the diagnostic odds ratio, and the ROC curves values. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of 86% (95% CI: 78%-91%) and 96% (95% CI 91%-99%) indicate that the test might be useful in clinical practice. Also, the positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR), which are a measure of diagnostic accuracy, gave satisfactorily results [37]. Good diagnostic tests have LR +  > 10 and have LR- < 0,1 [38]. Our meta-analysis shows LR + values of 24.7 (95% CI: 6.5–93.2) and LR- of 0.072 (95% CI: 0.057–0.093). These values correspond to a good diagnostic test. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) gives a rough estimate of diagnostic accuracy [39]. A value above 200 is generally accepted as those of a good diagnostic test, from our analysis a DOR of 371.66 was calculated. Regarding the meta-analysis by subgroup, no statistically significant difference between ctHPV DNA and TTMV-HPVDNA was evidenced. The ctHPVDNA subgroup sensitivity was 82.9% (95% CI 68.2–91.6) while the TTMV-HPVDNA was 89.7% (95% CI 72.2–96.7), p > 0.05. The ctHPVDNA subgroup specificity was 94.8% (95% CI 91.4–97.0) while the TTMV-DNA was 96.4% (95% CI 91.1–98.6), p > 0.05. HPV-related cancers of the oropharynx are rapidly increasing in incidence and may soon represent the majority of all head and neck cancers. Improved monitoring and surveillance methods are thus an urgent need in public health. Currently, the follow-up protocol for OPSCC patients is limited to imaging evaluation and the low diagnostic value and accuracy of such surveillance method may expose patients to unnecessary surgery [40]. Consequently, patients with HPV- associated OPSCC are prone to experience unnecessary diagnostic or therapeutic procedures, such as neck dissection. The rate of unnecessary neck dissection in case of clinical partial nodal response is high, and almost 60% of neck dissection specimens did not include cancer tissue [41]. Recently, researchers and clinicians have begun to evaluate the clinical utility of ctHPVDNA and TTMV-HPVDNA in biological fluids for the diagnosis and monitoring of patients with HPV-positive cancers. Tumor progression is associated with the expression of oncogenic viral DNA and proteins. Interestingly, EBV circulating DNA load is currently considered a new biomarker that reflects prognosis and change in response to nasopharyngeal cancer treatment [42]. It is thus reasonable that ctHPVDNA could have the same diagnostic/prognostic impact/efficacy. ctHPVDNA and TTMV-HPVDNA may have a role in diagnosis to confirm the correlation of the tumor with HPV [19], and during follow up to identify recurrence, as is evident from the current analysis. Furthermore, the kinetics of ctHPVDNA allows identifying the molecular residue disease [26] and in this setting liquid biopsy is used to select patients in de-escalation protocols [43]. It must be pointed out that meta-analysis has some limitations. First, the low number of studies somewhat limit the generalizability of results. Moreover, some heterogeneity between the included studies must be taken in consideration. ctHPVDNA assays are home-made and study design and primers/probes are different. In detail several studies analyze only HPV 16 while others have the possibility of identifying different strains of HPV. On the other the number of patients evaluated with TTMV-HPVDNA is more than double that with ctHPVDNA (913 vs 398). Furthermore, the assay used is always the same and this makes the methodology easier to evaluate. However, an important limitation is that two studies based on TTMV-HPVDNA are retrospective. Finally, a further limitation is the heterogeneity of the timing chosen to perform the test during follow-up, for this reason it is desirable that the liquid biopsy protocol is standardized.

In conclusion, this meta-analysis demonstrated that liquid biopsy have good accuracy, sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of relapse in patient with HPV + OPSCC. In the future, a multidimensional integrated approach which links multiple clinical, radiological, and laboratory data will contribute to obtain the best follow-up strategies for the follow-up of HPV-OPSCC. Currently caution is advised, liquid biopsy protocol needs to be standardized and liquid biopsy cannot yet be used in clinical setting. It is necessary to improved sensitivity before widespread adoption. In the next years, studies on larger and detailed patients’ cohorts and continued improvements in assay methodology and technology could allow the implementation of ctHPVDNA in routine clinical use.

Availability of data and material

All data generated or analyzed in this work are included in this article and/or its figures. Further enquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

OPSCC:

Oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma

HPV:

Human Papillomavirus

PET:

Positron emission tomography

MRI:

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

ctHPVDNA:

Circulating tumor HPVDNA

TTMV-HPVDNA:

Circulating tumor tissue–modified viral HPV DNA

ddPCR:

Digital drop PCR

References

  1. Johnson DE, Burtness B, Leemans CR, Lui VWY, Bauman JE, Grandis JR. Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2020;6(1):92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Mehanna H, Beech T, Nicholson T, El-Hariry I, McConkey C, Paleri V, et al. Prevalence of human papillomavirus in oropharyngeal and nonoropharyngeal head and neck cancer–systematic review and meta-analysis of trends by time and region. Head Neck. 2013;35(5):747–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dona MG, Pichi B, Rollo F, Gheit T, Laquintana V, Covello R, et al. Mucosal and cutaneous human papillomaviruses in head and neck squamous cell papillomas. Head Neck. 2017;39(2):254–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lechner M, Jones OS, Breeze CE, Gilson R. Gender-neutral HPV vaccination in the UK, rising male oropharyngeal cancer rates, and lack of HPV awareness. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(2):131–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Campo F, Iocca O, De Virgilio A, Mazzola F, Mercante G, Pichi B, et al. Treatment of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: is swallowing quality better after TORS or RT? Radiother Oncol. 2023;183:109547.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mehanna H, Wong WL, McConkey CC, Rahman JK, Robinson M, Hartley AG, et al. PET-CT surveillance versus neck dissection in advanced head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(15):1444–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Corpman DW, Masroor F, Carpenter DM, Nayak S, Gurushanthaiah D, Wang KH. Posttreatment surveillance PET/CT for HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer. Head Neck. 2019;41(2):456–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rulach R, Zhou S, Hendry F, Stobo D, James A, Dempsey MF, et al. 12 week PET-CT has low positive predictive value for nodal residual disease in human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancers. Oral Oncol. 2019;97:76–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yu Y, Mabray M, Silveira W, Shen PY, Ryan WR, Uzelac A, et al. Earlier and more specific detection of persistent neck disease with diffusion-weighted MRI versus subsequent PET/CT after definitive chemoradiation for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. 2017;39(3):432–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhou S, Chan C, Rulach R, Dyab H, Hendry F, Maxfield C, et al. Long term survival in patients with human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer and equivocal response on 12-week PET-CT is not compromised by the omission of neck dissection. Oral Oncol. 2022;128:105870.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mathews F, Irizarry R, Rosenfeld R, Sundaram K. Systematic review and meta-analysis of post-treatment PET/CT in HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2022;131(6):595–603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ng SH, Liao CT, Lin CY, Chan SC, Lin YC, Yen TC, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, diffusion-weighted MRI and (18)F-FDG PET/CT for the prediction of survival in oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma treated with chemoradiation. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(11):4162–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Marzi S, Piludu F, Sanguineti G, Marucci L, Farneti A, Terrenato I, et al. The prediction of the treatment response of cervical nodes using intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2017;92:93–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wotman M, Ghaly M, Massaro L, Tham T, Seetharamu N, Kamdar D, et al. Improving post-CRT neck assessment in patients with HPV-associated OPSCC (review). Mol Clin Oncol. 2020;13(4):24.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. van der Putten L, van den Broek GB, de Bree R, van den Brekel MW, Balm AJ, Hoebers FJ, et al. Effectiveness of salvage selective and modified radical neck dissection for regional pathologic lymphadenopathy after chemoradiation. Head Neck. 2009;31(5):593–603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Thompson CA, Charlson ME, Schenkein E, Wells MT, Furman RR, Elstrom R, et al. Surveillance CT scans are a source of anxiety and fear of recurrence in long-term lymphoma survivors. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(11):2262–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Guo T, Qualliotine JR, Ha PK, Califano JA, Kim Y, Saunders JR, et al. Surgical salvage improves overall survival for patients with HPV-positive and HPV-negative recurrent locoregional and distant metastatic oropharyngeal cancer. Cancer. 2015;121(12):1977–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lang Kuhs KA, Brenner JC, Holsinger FC, Rettig EM. Circulating tumor HPV DNA for surveillance of HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a narrative review. JAMA Oncol. 2023;9(12):1716–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Paolini F, Campo F, Iocca O, Manciocco V, De Virgilio A, De Pascale V, Moretto S, Dalfino G, Vidiri A, Blandino G, Pimpinelli F, Venuti A, Pellini R. It is time to improve the diagnostic workup of oropharyngeal cancer with circulating tumor HPV DNA: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Head Neck. 2023;45(11):2945–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.27515. Epub 2023 Sep 16.

  20. Akashi K, Sakai T, Fukuoka O, Saito Y, Yoshida M, Ando M, et al. Usefulness of circulating tumor DNA by targeting human papilloma virus-derived sequences as a biomarker in p16-positive oropharyngeal cancer. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):572.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Berger BM, Hanna GJ, Posner MR, Genden EM, Lautersztain J, Naber SP, et al. Detection of occult recurrence using circulating tumor tissue modified viral HPV DNA among patients treated for HPV-driven oropharyngeal carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2022;28(19):4292–301.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Chera BS, Kumar S, Shen C, Amdur R, Dagan R, Green R, Goldman E, Weiss J, Grilley-Olson J, Patel S, Zanation A, Hackman T, Blumberg J, Patel S, Thorp B, Weissler M, Yarbrough W, Sheets N, Mendenhall W, Tan XM, Gupta GP. Plasma Circulating Tumor HPV DNA for the Surveillance of Cancer Recurrence in HPV-Associated Oropharyngeal Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(10):1050–8. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.19.02444. Epub 2020 Feb 4. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 20;38(30):3579. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.02655. Erratum in: J Clin Oncol. 2023 Sep 20;41(27):4449. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.23.01228.

  23. Ferrier ST, Tsering T, Sadeghi N, Zeitouni A, Burnier JV. Blood and saliva-derived ctDNA is a marker of residual disease after treatment and correlates with recurrence in human papillomavirus-associated head and neck cancer. Cancer Med. 2023;12(15):15777–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Haring CT, Bhambhani C, Brummel C, Jewell B, Bellile E, Heft Neal ME, Sandford E, Spengler RM, Bhangale A, Spector ME, McHugh J, Prince ME, Mierzwa M, Worden FP, Tewari M, Swiecicki PL, Brenner JC. Human papilloma virus circulating tumor DNA assay predicts treatment response in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oncotarget. 2021;12(13):1214–29. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.27992.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Jakobsen KK, Bendtsen SK, Pallisgaard N, Friborg J, Lelkaitis G, Gronhoj C, et al. Liquid biopsies with circulating plasma HPV-DNA measurements-a clinically applicable surveillance tool for patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2023;29(19):3914–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. O'Boyle CJ, Siravegna G, Varmeh S, Queenan N, Michel A, Pang KCS, et al. Cell-free human papillomavirus DNA kinetics after surgery for human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer. Cancer. 2022;128(11):2193–204.

  27. Tatsumi M, Tanaka H, Takenaka Y, Suzuki M, Fukusumi T, Eguchi H, Watabe T, Kato H, Yachida S, Inohara H, Tomiyama N. Association of circulating tumor HPV16DNA levels and quantitative PET parameters in patients with HPV-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):3278. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53894-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Warlow SJ, Adamowicz M, Thomson JP, Wescott RA, Robert C, Carey LM, Thain H, Cuschieri K, Li LQ, Conn B, Hay A, Nixon IJ, Aitman TJ. Longitudinal measurement of HPV copy number in cell-free DNA is associated with patient outcomes in HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2022;48(6):1224–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2022.03.232. Epub 2022 Apr 6.

  29. Tanaka H, Takemoto N, Horie M, Takai E, Fukusumi T, Suzuki M, et al. Circulating tumor HPV DNA complements PET-CT in guiding management after radiotherapy in HPV-related squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Int J Cancer. 2021;148(4):995–1005.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Ferrandino RM, Chen S, Kappauf C, Barlow J, Gold BS, Berger MH, Westra WH, Teng MS, Khan MN, Posner MR, Misiukiewicz KJ, Bakst RL, Sindhu KK, Genden EM, Chai RL, Roof SA. Performance of Liquid Biopsy for Diagnosis and Surveillance of Human Papillomavirus-Associated Oropharyngeal Cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023;149(11):971–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2023.1937.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Hanna GJ, Roof SA, Jabalee J, Rettig EM, Ferrandino R, Chen S, et al. Negative predictive value of circulating tumor tissue modified viral (TTMV)-HPV DNA for HPV-driven oropharyngeal cancer surveillance. Clin Cancer Res. 2023;29(20):4306–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Li LQ, Adamowicz M, Wescott RA, Warlow SJ, Thomson JP, Robert C, et al. The role of liquid biopsy in management of the neck with indeterminate response on post-treatment imaging following non-surgical management of oropharyngeal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2023;49(1):55–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tanaka H, Suzuki M, Takemoto N, Fukusumi T, Eguchi H, Takai E, et al. Performance of oral HPV DNA, oral HPV mRNA and circulating tumor HPV DNA in the detection of HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer and cancer of unknown primary. Int J Cancer. 2022;150(1):174–86.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Creemers A, Ebbing EA, Pelgrim TC, Lagarde SM, van Etten-Jamaludin FS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic biomarkers in resectable esophageal adenocarcinomas. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):13281.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Cargnin S, Canonico PL, Genazzani AA, Terrazzino S. Quantitative analysis of circulating cell-free DNA for correlation with lung cancer survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12(1):43–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Campo F, Zocchi J, Moretto S, Mazzola F, Petruzzi G, Dona MG, et al. Cell-free human papillomavirus-DNA for monitoring treatment response of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Laryngoscope. 2021;132(3):560–8.

  37. Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Diagnostic tests 4: likelihood ratios. BMJ. 2004;329(7458):168–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Simundic AM. Measures of diagnostic accuracy: basic definitions. EJIFCC. 2009;19(4):203–11.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(11):1129–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pellini R, Manciocco V, Turri-Zanoni M, Vidiri A, Sanguineti G, Marucci L, et al. Planned neck dissection after chemoradiotherapy in advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer: the role of US, MRI and FDG-PET/TC scans to assess residual neck disease. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014;42(8):1834–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Harish K. Neck dissections: radical to conservative. World J Surg Oncol. 2005;3(1):21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Xie X, Ren Y, Wang K, Yi B. Molecular prognostic value of circulating Epstein-Barr viral DNA in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a meta-analysis of 27,235 cases in the endemic area of Southeast Asia. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2019;23(7):448–59.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Rosenberg AJ, Izumchenko E, Pearson A, Gooi Z, Blair E, Karrison T, et al. Prospective study evaluating dynamic changes of cell-free HPV DNA in locoregional viral-associated oropharyngeal cancer treated with induction chemotherapy and response-adaptive treatment. BMC Cancer. 2022;22(1):17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

This work was financially supported through funding from the institutional “Ricerca Corrente” granted by the Italian Ministry of health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Istituti Fisioterapici Ospitalieri (IFO), Via Elio Chianesi 53, Rome, 00144, Italy

    Flaminia Campo, Valentina Manciocco, Silvia Moretto, Claudio Moretti & Raul Pellini

  2. Division of Maxillofacial Surgery, Surgical Science Department, University of Torino, Torino, Italy

    Oreste Iocca

  3. HPV- Unit, UOSD Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Istituti Fisioterapici Ospitalieri (IFO), Rome, Italy

    Francesca Paolini & Aldo Venuti

  4. Deparment of Biochemical Sciences A. Rossi Fanelli, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Francesca Paolini

  5. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy

    Armando De Virgilio

  6. Otorhinolaryngology Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy

    Armando De Virgilio

  7. Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Istituti Fisioterapici Ospitalieri (IFO), Rome, Italy

    Antonello Vidiri

  8. IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56, Rozzano, Milan, 20089, Italy

    Paolo Bossi

  9. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, 20072, Italy

    Paolo Bossi

  10. Translational Oncology Research Unit, Department of Research, Diagnosis and Innovative Technologies, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy

    Giovanni Blandino

Authors
  1. Flaminia Campo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oreste Iocca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesca Paolini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Valentina Manciocco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Silvia Moretto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Armando De Virgilio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Claudio Moretti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Antonello Vidiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Aldo Venuti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Paolo Bossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Giovanni Blandino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Raul Pellini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

FC, RP: Conceptualization, Writing—Original Draft, approved the submitted version, agreed both to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions. CM, ADV, VM, SM: Investigation and data collection, approved the submitted version, agreed both to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions. OI, PB: performed analysis, approved the submitted version, agreed both to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions. FP, AV, GB, AV: Conceptualization, Writing—Review & Editing, approved the submitted version, agreed both to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Flaminia Campo.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

NA.

Consent for publication

Not required as this manuscript doesn't include details, images or videos related to the participants.

Competing interests

None of the Authors declared conflict of interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Material 1: Table 1s. Algorithm for each database (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases).

13046_2024_3137_MOESM2_ESM.docx

Supplementary Material 2: Table 2s. Assessment of methodological quality according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Campo, F., Iocca, O., Paolini, F. et al. The landscape of circulating tumor HPV DNA and TTMV-HPVDNA for surveillance of HPV-oropharyngeal carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 43, 215 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-024-03137-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-024-03137-1

Keywords

Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research

ISSN: 1756-9966

Contact us