scholarly journals Salivary High-Risk Human Papillomavirus DNA as a Biomarker for Human Papillomavirus–Driven Head and Neck Cancers

Author(s):  
Chameera Ekanayake Weeramange ◽  
Zhen Liu ◽  
Gunter Hartel ◽  
Yinan Li ◽  
Sarju Vasani ◽  
...  
2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 266-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jody E. Hooper ◽  
Jessica F. Hebert ◽  
Amy Schilling ◽  
Neil D. Gross ◽  
Joshua S. Schindler ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 141 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tarik Gheit ◽  
Devasena Anantharaman ◽  
Dana Holzinger ◽  
Laia Alemany ◽  
Sara Tous ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
pp. 329-364
Author(s):  
Christine H. Chung ◽  
Andreas Dietz ◽  
Vincent Gregoire ◽  
Marco Guzzo ◽  
Marc Hamoir ◽  
...  

This chapter discusses head and neck cancers, and covers the epidemiology and molecular biology of head and neck cancer. Head and neck cancer is a heterogeneous disease and most commonly caused by tobacco and alcohol use, as well as high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. HPV-negative and -positive HNSCC are demographically, biologically and clinically distinct entities with more favourable outcomes associated with HPV-positive tumours of the oropharynx. Comprehensive genomic analyses show that more functional loss of tumour suppressors are present in HPV-negative tumours compared to HPV-positive tumours. Furthermore, HNSCC can be molecularly characterized into five subtypes. The challenges facing future investigations are efficient translation of these biological findings into clinically meaningful advancements in patient treatment.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. e0199663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramona Gabriela Ursu ◽  
Mihai Danciu ◽  
Irene Alexandra Spiridon ◽  
Ruediger Ridder ◽  
Susanne Rehm ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Henry ◽  
Emily Arnovitz ◽  
Saul Frenkiel ◽  
Michael Hier ◽  
Anthony Zeitouni ◽  
...  

Head & Neck ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 802-810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Habbous ◽  
Luke T. G. Harland ◽  
Anthony La Delfa ◽  
Ehab Fadhel ◽  
Wei Xu ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koh Jun Ong ◽  
Marta Checchi ◽  
Lorna Burns ◽  
Charlotte Pavitt ◽  
Maarten J Postma ◽  
...  

BackgroundMany economic evaluations of human papillomavirus vaccination should ideally consider multiple disease outcomes, including anogenital warts, respiratory papillomatosis and non-cervical cancers (eg, anal, oropharyngeal, penile, vulvar and vaginal cancers). However, published economic evaluations largely relied on estimates from single studies or informal rapid literature reviews.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of articles up to June 2016 to identify costs and utility estimates admissible for an economic evaluation from a single-payer healthcare provider’s perspective. Meta-analyses were performed for studies that used same utility elicitation tools for similar diseases. Costs were adjusted to 2016/2017 US$.ResultsSixty-one papers (35 costs; 24 utilities; 2 costs and utilities) were selected from 10 742 initial records. Cost per case ranges were US$124–US$883 (anogenital warts), US$6912–US$52 579 (head and neck cancers), US$12 936–US$51 571 (anal cancer), US$17 524–34 258 (vaginal cancer), US$14 686–US$28 502 (vulvar cancer) and US$9975–US$27 629 (penile cancer). The total cost for 14 adult patients with recurrent respiratory papillomatosis was US$137 601 (one paper).Utility per warts episode ranged from 0.651 to 1 (12 papers, various utility elicitation methods), with pooled mean EQ-5D and EQ-VAS of 0.86 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.87) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.75), respectively. Fifteen papers reported utilities in head and neck cancers with range 0.29 (95% CI 0.0 to 0.76) to 0.94 (95% CI 0.3 to 1.0). Mean utility reported ranged from 0.5 (95% CI 0.4 to 0.61) to 0.65 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.75) (anal cancer), 0.59 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.64) (vaginal cancer), 0.65 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.70) (vulvar cancer) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.84) (penile cancer).ConclusionsDifferences in values reported from each paper reflect variations in cancer site, disease stages, study population, treatment modality/setting and utility elicitation methods used. As patient management changes over time, corresponding effects on both costs and utility need to be considered to ensure health economic assumptions are up-to-date and closely reflect the case mix of patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document