Abstract
Purpose
The risk of malignant transformation of oral preneoplastic lesion (OPL) is difficult to assess. DeltaNp63 is an early oncoprotein associated with mucosal tumorigenesis. The purpose of this study was to assess deltaNp63 expression in OPL and its role as a marker of oral cancer risk.
Experimental Design
DeltaNp63 expression was determined using immunohistochemistry in 152 OPL patients included in a clinical trial comparing retinyl palmitate alone or plus beta-carotene with low dose 13-cis retinoic acid. The associations between deltaNp63 expression as well as deltaNp63 expression with other potential risk factors for oral cancer development were analyzed.
Results
deltaNp63 expression was positive in 41 (27%) patients, clusters of intraepithelial inflammatory cells (EIC) were noted in 37 (26%) patients, and podoplanin (previously reported), was positive in 56 (37%) patients. Significantly more patients whose lesions were deltaNp63 positive or exhibited EIC developed oral cancers. In the multicovariate analysis including age, treatment, and histologic status as cofactors, positive deltaNp63 expression was associated with an increased hazard ratio of 3.308 (95% CI, 1.663 to 6.580; P=0.0007). Patients whose lesions showed positive deltaNp63, podoplanin, and EIC had the highest oral cancer risk with a hazard ratio of 4.372 (95% CI, 1.912 to 9.992; P=0.0005) and 61% oral cancer development rate at 5 years compared to 15% of other OPL patients (P<0.0001).
Conclusion
deltaNp63 overepression in OPL is associated with increased oral cancer risk. Together, deltaNp63, podoplanin, and EIC may be used as biomarkers to identify OPL patients with substantially high oral cancer risk.
Keywords: Podoplanin, oral cancer, oral leukoplakia, immunohistochemistry, biomarker
INTRODUCTION
Oral cancer is common worldwide. Leukoplakia is the most commonly diagnosed oral preneoplastic lesion (OPL) in the oral cavity (1), with a rate of malignant transformation between 17% and 24% during periods of up to 30 years (2–4). Prevention of malignant transformation is particularly important in view of the poor prognosis associated with oral squamous cell carcinoma (5). Clinical predictors of malignant transformation in oral leukoplakia have been recently reviewed (6). Although they are important, they are nonspecific and interdependent to some degree. Lesions with dysplastic features remain the most important indicator for risk of oral cancer in the population. However, the predictive value of dysplasia is insufficient, and more important, the majority of oral cancers develop from lesions that lack dysplastic changes (2, 3, 7).
Few prevention studies have shown efficacy in preventing malignant transformation of leukoplakias (8). One of the major difficulties in OPL prevention trials is identification of patients with higher cancer risk (9). Toward this need, we recently demonstrated that podoplanin, together with histologic status, was a promising biomarker for predicting the risk of oral cancer development (10). To further improve our risk-assessment model, we are exploring additional molecular markers using the same patient population.
We selected deltaNp63 in this study because it is a homologue of the p53 tumor suppressor (11) and frequently amplified and overexpressed in squamous cell carcinomas, including head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (12–15). In normal oral mucosa and reactive epithelial hyperplasia, deltaNp63 expression is only observed in the basal layer, with gradually decreased expression at the middle of the epithelium. But in dysplastic lesions, the expression may extend to the middle spinous layer and in some cases to almost the full thickness of the dysplastic epithelium (16–18). P63 has two major isoforms, Tap63 and deltaNp63 (11), and each has multiple variants due to alternative splicing at the COOH-terminus. In general, the Tap63 variants behave like p53, whereas the deltaNp63 variants possess oncogenic properties (11). However, the role of such deregulated expression in cancer risk assessment is unknown.
The primary objective of this study was to determine, in a relatively large population from whom OPL samples had been collected in a prospective longitudinal manner, whether considering overexpression of deltaNp63 alone or in combination with other molecular and morphologic features can be associated with a high risk to develop oral cancer.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Patients and Specimens
All of the 162 randomized and eligible patients who were enrolled in a randomized chemoprevention trial at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX) were eligible for this study. From 1994 to 2001, the patients had been diagnosed with OPL and randomly assigned to intervention with 13-cis-retinoic acid (13cRA) versus β-carotene (BC) + retinyl palmitate (RP) versus RP alone. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded biopsy specimens were obtained at enrollment or after enrollment but before any event (defined as the diagnosis of oral cancer). Clinicopathologic parameters were obtained from the clinical trial database. The follow-up data were obtained from a combination of chart review and a telephone interview. More detailed clinical information has been previously described in Papadimitrakopoulou et al (19). The study was approved by the institutional review board, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients.
Tissue Processing and Immunohistochemistry
Tissue sections (4 μm thick) from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue blocks of OPL were mounted on positively charged glass slides. DeltaNp63 immunostaining was performed using the avidin-biotin peroxidase complex (ABC) technique, as described previously (10). Briefly, slides were deparaffinized and rehydrated. To retrieve antigenicity, the slides were steamed with 10 mmol/L citrate buffer (pH, 6.0; DakoCytomation, Carpinteria, CA) for 30 minutes. The slides were then incubated in 10% fetal bovine serum for 30 minutes at room temperature, incubated with monoclonal antibody 4A4 (Dako M7247, 1:400 dilution) at room temperature for 1 hour, and subjected to signal development processes using the Vectastain Elite ABC kit according to the manufacturer's protocol (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA). The slides were counterstained with Mayer's hematoxylin (DakoCytomation). When the slides were evaluated, nuclear immunoreactivity was considered, and deltaNp63 expression was scored taking into account the intensity of nuclear staining (0–3), the thickness (from 0 [one third of the epithelial layer] to 3 [all the thickness of the epithelial layer]), and the gradient of deltaNp63 expression in the epithelial layer (from 0 [no expression] or 1 [conserved gradient of expression] to 3 [complete loss of the gradient of expression]). The score was defined as the sum of these 3 criteria (0 to 9). Based on our previous work, a common feature in normal oral epithelium was an intensity of deltaNp63 staining of 1–2 in one- or two-thirds of the epithelial layer with a conserved gradient of expression (score 0–5) (20). Accordingly, OPL with a score 0–5 were considered as negative, and OPL with a score 6–9 were considered as positive.
We also evaluated podoplanin expression, considering cell membrane immunoreactivity; the expression was scored as negative (0–1) or positive (2–4) as previously reported (10).
During the evaluation of p63 immunostaining, we noticed that some samples exhibited clusters of intraepithelial inflammatory cells (EIC) in the basal layer of the epithelium. The presence of isolated EIC was a common feature, but clusters of EIC were clearly identified and defined by a cluster of at least 10 inflammatory cells in the thickness of the epithelium. The presence of inflammatory cells in the stroma was not considered in the scoring.
All the different scores were based on examination of the whole section in each biopsy under a multiheaded microscope by three observers (H.K., L.M., and A.K.E.N. for podoplanin and P.S., L.M., and A.K.E.N. for deltaNp63 and EIC), who were blinded to the clinical information.
Statistical Analysis
The associations between podoplanin expression, deltaNp63 expression, EIC status, and clinicopathologic parameters were evaluated using the χ2 test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables. For time-to-event analysis, Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted. The median time to event with 95% confidence interval (CI) and event-free survival rates at years 3, 5, and 10 were determined. Cox proportional hazards models were utilized for unicovariate and multicovariate analyses. The hazard ratios with 95% CIs and P values were reported. All tests were two-sided.
RESULTS
Characteristics of the Patients
Of the 162 patients enrolled in the chemoprevention trial, 10 (6%) had either lack of sufficient tissue in blocks (n = ?) or the disappearance of the squamous epithelial lesions (n = ?). In 18 (12%) of the 152 patients with analyzable tissue in this study, biopsy specimens were obtained after enrollment because the paraffin blocks from baseline biopsies were unavailable. The medium follow-up period for the patient population was 7.5 years, with 36 (24%) of the 152 patients developing invasive cancer in the oral cavity: 18 tumors at the same sites of the original OPL and 18 tumors at different sites from the original OPL.
Expression of deltaNp63, EIC, and Podoplanin in OPL
Expression of deltaNp63 was mainly nuclear in squamous epithelial cells. In contrast to the pattern of podoplanin expression (10), deltaNp63 immunostaining was homogeneous within a given lesion. DeltaNp63 expression was observed in ?? (??/152=95%) of the lesions; only 8 (5%) samples had no staining. In contrast, 28% of lesions had no podoplanin expression. Although nearly universal deltaNp63 nuclear staining was noted, the intensity of the expression and the extent of positivity in the epithelium varied considerably. The intensity of expression was scored as 1 in 18 (12%) cases, as 2 in 59 (39%) cases, and as 3 in 67 (44%) cases. The thickness of deltaNp63 expression in the epithelial layer was scored as 1 in 85 (56%) cases, as 2 in 51 (34%) cases, and as 3 in 8 (5%) cases. The gradient was scored as 1 (conserved) in 120 (79%) cases, as 2 (partial loss) in 13 (9%) cases, and 3 (complete loss) in 11 (7%) cases. Among 152 evaluable cases, 111 (73%) cases were classified as negative (score 0–5), and 41 (27%) cases were classified as positive (score 6–9) for deltaNp63 (Fig. 1A and 1B).
Figure 1.
deltaNp63 expression and intraepithelial inflammatory cells. (A) A typical oral leukoplakia with negative deltaNp63 expression. (B) A high-grade dysplasia with positive deltaNp63 expression. (C, D) Two OPL showing clusters of EIC (arrows).
While reviewing the expression of deltaNp63, we observed that some samples exhibited clusters of EIC in the basal layer of the epithelium. Clusters of EIC were clearly identified in 37 (26%) of 145 evaluable samples, usually in the basal layers (Figure 1C and 1D).
Podoplanin expression in this cohort of patients with OPL has been previously reported (10). In summary, expression of podoplanin was highly variable, and observed on the cell membrane, in pockets, predominantly at the basal layer. Of 150 evaluable OPL lesions, 56 (37%) were classified as podoplanin positive, and the remaining 63% were classified as podoplanin negative.
Correlation of deltaNp63, EIC, Podoplanin, and Clinicopathologic Parameters
The distribution of the podoplanin expression status and its association with general clinicopathologic parameters are reported previously (10). In summary, podoplanin positivity was more frequent in older patients, female, and dysplastic lesions. The expression of deltaNp63 was more frequent in female (P=0.02) and white (P=0.04) populations. An association between deltaNp63 expression and histologic status was observed, without reaching statistical significance (P=0.06). There was no statistically significant correlation between deltaNp63 expression status and smoking history or history of alcohol consumption. The presence of clusters of EIC was associated with older patients; the median ages were 63 years for patients with clusters of EIC and 53 years for patients without clusters of EIC (P=0.008). The presence of clusters of EIC was not correlated with sex, race, histologic status, smoking history, or history of alcohol consumption (Table 1). A highly significant association was observed between deltaNp63 and podoplanin status (P<0.0001), between deltaNp63 status and the presence of clusters of EIC (P=0.0003), and between podoplanin status and the presence of EIC (P=0.0012). Despite these findings, we observed that among 41 OPL positive for deltaNp63, 12 (29%) were negative for podoplanin and that among 111 OPL negative for deltaNp63, 25 (23%) were positive for podoplanin. The presence of all three positive biomarkers was associated with dysplastic histology (P=0.016) and older age (P=0.004).
Table 1.
Median time to oral cancer development (in years) and the oral cancer-free survival (OCFS) rates at years 5 and 10, along with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all patients and for each group. P-values from the log-rank test (unicovariate analysis) are also provided
| Variable | N | Oral Cancer | Median (95% CI) | OCFS Rate at 5 Years (95% CI) | OCFS Rate at 10 Years (95% CI) | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All patients | 162 | 39 | 14.34 (NA, NA) | 0.8 (0.74, 0.87) | 0.73 (0.66, 0.81) | |
| Sex | 0.80 | |||||
| Female | 77 | 18 | NA (NA, NA) | 0.78 (0.69, 0.88) | 0.73 (0.63, 0.85) | |
| Male | 85 | 21 | 14.34 (NA, NA) | 0.82 (0.74, 0.91) | 0.73 (0.63, 0.85) | |
| Race | 0.74 | |||||
| Other | 17 | 3 | NA (NA, NA) | 0.85 (0.67, 1) | 0.75 (0.54, 1) | |
| White | 145 | 36 | 14.34 (NA, NA) | 0.8 (0.73, 0.87) | 0.73 (0.66, 0.82) | |
| Histologic status | 0.05 | |||||
| Hyperplasia | 109 | 22 | 14.34 (NA, NA) | 0.84 (0.78, 0.92) | 0.79 (0.71, 0.88) | |
| Mild dysplasia | 40 | 11 | NA (NA, NA) | 0.75 (0.63, 0.91) | 0.67 (0.53, 0.86) | |
| Moderate/severe dysplasia | 13 | 6 | 6.67 (1.85, NA) | 0.59 (0.37, 0.95) | 0.47 (0.25, 0.9) | |
| Treatment arm | 0.66 | |||||
| 13cRA | 81 | 20 | NA (NA, NA) | 0.78 (0.69, 0.88) | 0.72 (0.62, 0.83) | |
| BC + RP | 45 | 10 | 14.34 (NA, NA) | 0.84 (0.73, 0.96) | 0.8 (0.69, 0.94) | |
| RP | 36 | 9 | NA (6.65, NA) | 0.82 (0.69, 0.96) | - | |
| Smoking history | 0.26 | |||||
| Current | 56 | 8 | NA (NA, NA) | 0.86 (0.77, 0.96) | 0.83 (0.72, 0.95) | |
| Former | 65 | 21 | 14.34 (10.7, NA) | 0.78 (0.68, 0.89) | 0.67 (0.55, 0.81) | |
| Never | 41 | 10 | NA (NA, NA) | 0.77 (0.65, 0.91) | 0.74 (0.61, 0.89) | |
| Alcohol history | 0.74 | |||||
| Current | 93 | 21 | 14.34 (NA, NA) | 0.84 (0.76, 0.92) | 0.75 (0.66, 0.86) | |
| Former | 19 | 5 | NA (6.21, NA) | 0.78 (0.61, 1) | 0.68 (0.48, 0.98) | |
| Never | 50 | 13 | NA (NA, NA) | 0.75 (0.64, 0.88) | 0.72 (0.6, 0.87) | |
| Podoplanin expression | < 0.0001 | |||||
| 0,1 | 94 | 13 | 14.34 (NA, NA) | 0.93 (0.87, 0.99) | 0.83 (0.74, 0.92) | |
| 2,3,4 | 56 | 22 | 10.7 (6.67, NA) | 0.63 (0.51, 0.77) | 0.6 (0.47, 0.75) | |
| deltaNp63 expression | < 0.0001 | |||||
| 0–5 | 111 | 17 | 14.34 (NA, NA) | 0.89 (0.83, 0.95) | 0.81 (0.73, 0.9) | |
| 6–9 | 41 | 19 | 10.7 (3.52, NA) | 0.61 (0.47, 0.78) | 0.54 (0.4, 0.73) | |
| Clusters of EIC | 0.015 | |||||
| Absent | 108 | 18 | NA (NA, NA) | 0.86 (0.79, 0.93) | 0.79 (0.71, 0.89) | |
| Present | 37 | 14 | 10.7 (6.67, NA) | 0.72 (0.59, 0.89) | 0.62 (0.47, 0.81) | |
| Number of positive biomarkers | < 0.0001 | |||||
| 0,1,2 | 140 | 26 | 14.34 (NA, NA) | 0.85 (0.79, 0.92) | 0.78 (0.71, 0.87) | |
| 3 | 15 | 11 | 2.46 (1.62, NA) | 0.39 (0.2, 0.74) | 0.31 (0.14, 0.68) | |
Abbreviations: 13cRA: 13-cis-retinoic acid, β-carotene: BC, RP: retinyl palmitate, EIC: intraepithelial inflammatory cells
Expression of deltaNp63, Podoplanin, EIC, and Oral Cancer Risk
In the unicovariate analysis, sex, race, age, smoking, and alcohol history were not significantly associated with oral cancer development. OPL histologic status was associated with oral cancer development but barely reached statistical significance (P=0.05). Patients with podoplanin-positive OPL had a significantly higher incidence of oral cancer than did those with podoplanin-negative OPL (log-rank test, P<0.0001) (Table 1). Patients with deltaNp63-positive OPL had an increased oral cancer risk, particularly during the first 3 years of follow-up (Fig. 2, log-rank test, P<0.0001). At 5 years after the randomization date, the oral cancer-free survival rate for the patients with deltaNp63-negative OPL was 89% (95% CI, 0.83 to 0.95), compared with 61% for the patients with deltaNp63-positive OPL (95% CI, 0.47 to 0.78) (Table 1). The risk of developing oral cancer was less marked when considering the presence of clusters of EIC but was statistically significant (Fig. 2, log-rank test, P=0.015). At 5 years after the randomization date, the oral cancer-free survival rate for the patients with no clusters of EIC was 86% (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.93), compared with 72% for the patients with clusters of EIC (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89) (Table 1).
Figure 2.
Oral cancer-free survival by patient prognostic factors: deltaNp63 expression (A), presence of intraepithelial inflammatory cells (B), and combinations of biomarkers: 0 or 1 versus 2 or 3 (C), and 0, 1 or 2 versus 3 positive biomarkers (D). E/N: number of events and number of patients.
We then looked at the probability of developing oral cancer considering all three biomarkers. When all three biomarkers were positive, the oral cancer-free survival was strikingly lower; at 5 years after randomization, the oral cancer-free survival rate for the patients with three positive biomarkers was 39% (95% CI, 0.20 to 0.74), compared with 85% (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.92) for the patients with no, one, or two positive biomarkers (P<0.0001) (Table 1). When using Bonferroni method to adjust for multiple comparisons, the differences in time to oral cancer for podoplanin, deltaNp63, and all three markers combined remain significant when comparing to the significance level of 0.0125. However, the difference in time to oral cancer for clusters of EIC becomes marginally significant.
For multicovariate analysis, the Cox proportional hazards model was fitted for the three biomarkers and the group of biomarkers separately because they were highly associated with each other (Table 2). For each model, age, treatment arm, and histologic status and a specific biomarker or group of biomarkers were entered. In model 1 (Table 2a), podoplanin was the only independent factor, with a hazard ratio of 3.094 (95% CI, 1.505 to 6.363; P=0.002). In model 2 (Table 2b), deltaNp63 expression was an independent factor with a hazard ratio of 3.308 (95% CI, 1.663 to 6.580; P=0.0007), whereas age was another independent factor but less significant (P=0.02). In model 3 (Table 2c), age and histologic status were the only independent factors; the presence of clusters of EIC did not reach statistical significance. In model 4 (Table 2d), all three biomarkers being positive was the only independent factor for cancer development and was associated with the highest hazard ratio of 4.372 (95% CI, 1.912 to 9.992; P=0.0005).
Table 2a.
Multicovariate analysis of podoplanin, deltaNp63, clusters of EIC, and all three biomarkers for oral cancer development Model 1 (E/N=35/150)
| Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Pr > ChiSq | Hazard Ratio | 95% Hazard Ratio Confidence Limits | |
| Age | 0.05 | 1.031 | 1.000 | 1.064 |
| BC + RP vs. 13cRA | 0.79 | 0.889 | 0.378 | 2.090 |
| RP only vs. 13cRA | 0.41 | 1.426 | 0.617 | 3.297 |
| Histologic status at baseline: dysplasia vs. hyperplasia | 0.11 | 1.776 | 0.881 | 3.581 |
| Podoplanin: 2–4 vs. 0–1 | 0.002 | 3.094 | 1.505 | 6.363 |
Note: for multicovariate analysis, the Cox proportional model was fitted for the three markers separately because they are highly associated with each other. For each model, age, treatment arm, and histologic status and a specific biomarker or group of biomarkers were entered. Abbreviations: 13cRA: 13-cis-retinoic acid, β-carotene: BC, RP: retinyl palmitate, E/N: number of events and number of patients, Pr > ChiSq: p-value, EIC: intraepithelial inflammatory cells
Table 2b.
Multicovariate analysis of podoplanin, deltaNp63, clusters of EIC, and all three biomarkers for oral cancer development Model 2 (E/N=36/152)
| Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Pr > ChiSq | Hazard Ratio | 95% Hazard Ratio Confidence Limits | |
| Age | 0.02 | 1.035 | 1.004 | 1.066 |
| BC + RP vs. 13cRA | 0.95 | 1.027 | 0.452 | 2.336 |
| RP only vs. 13cRA | 0.52 | 1.311 | 0.576 | 2.981 |
| Histologic status at baseline: dysplasia vs. hyperplasia | 0.16 | 1.632 | 0.827 | 3.222 |
| DeltaNp63: 6–9 vs. 0–5 | 0.0007 | 3.308 | 1.663 | 6.580 |
Note: for multicovariate analysis, the Cox proportional model was fitted for the three markers separately because they are highly associated with each other. For each model, age, treatment arm, and histologic status and a specific biomarker or group of biomarkers were entered. Abbreviations: 13cRA: 13-cis-retinoic acid, β-carotene: BC, RP: retinyl palmitate, E/N: number of events and number of patients, Pr > ChiSq: p-value, EIC: intraepithelial inflammatory cells
Table 2c.
Multicovariate analysis of podoplanin, deltaNp63, clusters of EIC, and all three biomarkers for oral cancer development Model 3 (E/N=32/145)
| Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Pr > ChiSq | Hazard Ratio | 95% Hazard Ratio Confidence Limits | |
| Age | 0.006 | 1.047 | 1.013 | 1.082 |
| BC + RP vs. 13cRA | 0.49 | 0.727 | 0.294 | 1.795 |
| RP only vs. 13cRA | 0.24 | 1.647 | 0.714 | 3.796 |
| Histologic status at baseline: dysplasia vs. hyperplasia | 0.046 | 2.054 | 1.013 | 4.164 |
| Clusters of EIC: 1 vs. 0 | 0.057 | 2.032 | 0.980 | 4.213 |
Note: for multicovariate analysis, the Cox proportional model was fitted for the three markers separately because they are highly associated with each other. For each model, age, treatment arm, and histologic status and a specific biomarker or group of biomarkers were entered. Abbreviations: 13cRA: 13-cis-retinoic acid, β-carotene: BC, RP: retinyl palmitate, E/N: number of events and number of patients, Pr > ChiSq: p-value, EIC: intraepithelial inflammatory cells
Table 2d.
Multicovariate analysis of podoplanin, deltaNp63, clusters of EIC, and all three biomarkers for oral cancer development Model 4 (E/N=37/155)
| Analysis of Maximum Likelihood Estimates | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Pr > ChiSq | Hazard Ratio | 95% Hazard Ratio Confidence Limits | |
| Age | 0.12 | 1.024 | 0.994 | 1.056 |
| BC + RP vs. 13cRA | 0.86 | 0.929 | 0.413 | 2.093 |
| RP only vs. 13cRA | 0.19 | 1.757 | 0.759 | 4.070 |
| Histologic status at baseline: dysplasia vs. hyperplasia | 0.36 | 1.385 | 0.689 | 2.783 |
| Number of positive biomarkers: 3 vs. 0–2 | 0.0005 | 4.372 | 1.912 | 9.992 |
Note: for multicovariate analysis, the Cox proportional model was fitted for the three markers separately because they are highly associated with each other. For each model, age, treatment arm, and histologic status and a specific biomarker or group of biomarkers were entered. Abbreviations: 13cRA: 13-cis-retinoic acid, β-carotene: BC, RP: retinyl palmitate, E/N: number of events and number of patients, Pr > ChiSq: p-value, EIC: intraepithelial inflammatory cells
Among 36 patients who developed oral cancer and for whom biomarker data were available, podoplanin and deltaNp63 were coexpressed in 16 (45%) cases, neither of them was positive in 12 cases (33%), and interestingly, only one of them was expressed in 8 (22%) cases. One of the 12 patients with negative podoplanin and deltaNp63 expression exhibited clusters of EIC. Among 36 patients who developed oral cancer and for whom deltaNp63 data were available, 79% of the patients who were positive for deltaNp63 developed oral cancer at 3 years of follow-up, compared with 47% of the patients who were negative for deltaNp63.
Among all cases studied, the cumulative incidence rate for developing oral cancer at 3 years of follow-up was 53% for the patients with all three positive biomarkers, compared with 11% of the other patients. When we considered only oral cancers that developed in the same site as the OPL, 25% of the patients positive for podoplanin developed cancer, compared with 4% of the patients negative for podoplanin; 24% of the patients positive for deltaNp63 developed cancer, compared with 7% of the patients negative for deltaNp63; and 40% of the patients positive for all the biomarkers developed oral cancer, compared with 9% of the patients with no, one, or two positive biomarkers.
DISCUSSION
In this study of a large series of patients included in a prospective chemoprevention trial with a median follow-up of 7.5 years, we demonstrate for the first time the value of deltaNp63 expression as a predictor of oral cancer development. In a multicovariate analysis that included age, treatment arm, and histologic status, deltaNp63 expression was independently associated with oral cancer development with a hazard ratio of 3.308 (95% CI, 1.663 to 6.580). At 5 years after the randomization date, 39% of the patients with positive deltaNp63 staining had developed cancer, compared with only 11% of patients with negative deltaNp63 staining. Interesting, we observed that the presence of clusters of EIC was associated with an increased risk of developing oral cancer, although this risk was marginally significant in the multicovariate analysis. The significance of deltaNp63 expression in predicting oral cancer development was comparable to that of podoplanin. Because these two factors were highly associated, analyzing them together in a multicovariate analysis was difficult. Nevertheless, when OPL were positive for all three risk biomarkers, patients had the greatest risk of developing oral cancer, 61% at 5 years with a hazard ratio of 4.372 (95% CI, 1.912 to 9.992).
The samples used in our study were collected in the largest and longest-term prospective, randomized trial conducted in OPL patients to date and the first to include a prespecified secondary analysis of long-term oral cancer incidence (19). The results of this trial that compared low doses of 13-cRA to RP with or without BC in OPL shows similar oral cancer-free survival rates across all arms. No significant association between clinical response at 3 months and longer oral cancer-free survival was observed. Histologic responses were similar between all arms of the study. The conclusion of the trial was that 13-cRA versus BC and RP or RP alone were all ineffective in preventing oral cancer development. Our knowledge of the natural history of OPL is mainly based on a study which included 257 patients with untreated oral leukoplakia followed for an average period of 7.2 years (3). Of the initial biopsies, 235 (91%) revealed a benign hyperkeratosis and 22 (9%) others contained some degree of epithelial dysplasia. A total of 53 (21%) patients developed oral cancer. With a similar follow-up, we observed the same rate of transformation. This series of longitudinal and prospectively collected samples is therefore unique and represents an opportunity to identify biomarkers associated with a high risk to develop oral cancer (21).
Among the two major isoforms described for p63 (11), deltaNp63 variants are the predominant forms in epithelial cells. In our study, we use a monoclonal antibody raised against the amino-terminus of deltaNp63 (Clone 4A4) (13). In particular, deltaNp63 has been reported as the predominant form in epithelial cells, in oral epithelial dysplasia and has been found to be overexpressed in squamous cell carcinomas of head and neck (SCCHN) (22–24). We previously reported that deltaNp63 expression was gradually increasing in extent and intensity with histologic progression of dysplasia. In carcinomas, p63 was almost always expressed (94.7%) (20). These results and our present paper are in line with p63 as an early event in HNSCC tumorigenesis.
Several mechanisms have been mentioned to explain the role of deltaNp63 as a promoter of tumorigenesis. In SCCHN, deltaNp63 up-regulates expression of keratins 6A and 14 and down-regulates expression of keratins 4 and 19, in keeping with their expression patterns in SCCHN (25). It has also been shown that deltaNp63 promotes survival in SCCHN (26), and is a positive regulator of the beta-catenin signaling pathway (27). Finally, silencing of overexpressed deltaNp63 is associated with an inhibition of proliferation concurrently with an upregulation of cyclin dependant kinase inhibitors p27kip1 and p57kip2 (28).
We have shown a high podoplanin expression in 57% of squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, and its association with lymph node metastasis and a short disease-specific survival (29). Epidermal growth factor, basic fibroblast growth factor and tumor necrosis factor have been shown to induce podoplanin expression, and podoplanin has been associated with tumor cell invasion in the absence of epithelial-mesenchymal transition pathway (30, 31). The underlying molecular players and mechanisms warrant further investigation.
The mechanism of the high association between deltaNp63 and podoplanin expression observed in our study is unclear. DeltaNp63 is widely expressed in the basal layer, but not in terminally differentiated squamous cells, suggesting a critical role of deltaNp63 in epithelial stem cell biology (11), (32). It has been recently shown that deltaNp63 acts on the CD44 protein in a fashion opposite to that of p53, by stimulating CD44 expression (33), and that a CD44+ population of human head and neck squamous cell carcinomas possessed properties of cancer stem cells (34). Podoplanin expression was not detectable in normal oral epithelium or at the basal layer in most of the OPL but extended to the suprabasal layer or above in some of the lesions. Similar to that of deltaNp63, podoplanin expression is mainly detected in squamous cell carcinomas and is rare in adenocarcinomas (31). Several lines of evidence suggest that both deltaNp63 and podoplanin are induced during tissue development and regeneration (11, 31). In an analysis of ME180 cervical carcinoma cells depleted of deltaNp63 expression, podoplanin was one of the most significantly downregulated genes (35). However, in contrast to the nuclear localization of deltaNp63, podoplanin localizes on the cell membrane and is not always coexpressed in the same cells. Therefore, more studies are needed to determine the relationship between deltaNp63 and podoplanin.
The association between clusters of EIC and an increased risk of oral cancer development is interesting although not very strong. An increase of immune cell infiltration has been associated with progression of oral epithelium from hyperkeratosis to dysplasia and carcinoma (36). A recent study by Katou et al (37) showed that intraepithelial lymphocytes were immunosuppressive, whereas stromal lymphocytes were immunocompetent. However, oral cancers with CD4+ lymphocytes infiltrating were associated with a favorable prognosis (38). Therefore, it will be important to better characterize inflammatory cells forming the clusters of EIC, as a specific population is perhaps associated with a higher risk of developing oral cancer. Since human papillomavirus (HPV) has been implicated in oral cancer development (39), it will be also important to determine its association with clusters of EIC.
BC is a precursor of vitamin A, RP is a form of vitamin A, and 13-cRA is derived from vitamin A. Vitamin A has been shown to have an unexpected and important effect on the immune response (40). However, no significant association was observed between the presence of clusters of EIC and response to treatment (data not shown).
We previously reported that more podoplanin-positive OPL were observed in the group that developed cancer at the same site than in the group that developed cancer at different sites, even if the difference was not statistically significant (10). This was not the case for deltaNp63 and clusters of EIC where the distribution of positive samples was the same in the group that developed cancer at the same site and in the group that developed cancer at different sites (data not shown). This observation raises the possibility that deltaNp63 and clusters of EIC may reflect field cancerization phenomena, and podoplanin a more focal and clonal expansion.
Previous studies showed that loss of heterozygosity (LOH) at 3p and/or 9p in patients with OPL was associated with a 25% to 40% 3-year cancer risk (41–43). This parameter is being used to select high-risk patients in an ongoing phase III oral cancer prevention trial targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (9). Clusters of EIC, podoplanin, and deltaNp63 expression had similar predictive value (25–38% 3-year cancer risk, data not shown), whereas triple-positive patients had a 53% 3-year cancer risk. Because the measurement of the three biomarkers can be done in routine pathology laboratories, in practice it may have an advantage over the more sophisticated genetic analysis (44).
One of the important issues in biomarker development is whether the biomarkers can be used to guide treatment. In basal-like breast cancers, both EGFR and deltaNp63 are often coexpressed (45). In our future studies, it will be interesting to test whether there is a correlation between the two factors in OPL because EGFR is a valid therapeutic target.
Taken together, the high oral cancer predictive value using the biomarkers reported in this study is promising and warrants further validation in other prospective longitudinal cohort studies, preferably in general populations to avoid the potential patient selection bias inherent in most therapeutic/prevention trials.
Acknowledgments
Notes: This work is supported by National Cancer Institute grants PO1 CA106451, P50 CA97007, and P30 CA16672.
Footnotes
Statement of Translational Relevance: Oral leukoplakia is the most common oral premalignancy (OPL), but the risk of malignant transformation is difficult to assess. In this study, we show for the first time that overexpression of deltaNp63 in OPL is associated with increased oral cancer risk in a large population from whom OPL samples had been collected in a prospective longitudinal manner. Together, deltaNp63 expression, podoplanin expression, and presence of clusters of intraepithelial inflammation cells are strong predictors of increased oral cancer risk, and may be used as biomarkers in assessing oral cancer risk in patients with OPL. This work has never been reported in any previous abstract, presentation, report, or publication.
REFERENCES
- 1.Warnakulasuriya S, Johnson NW, van der Waal I. Nomenclature and classification of potentially malignant disorders of the oral mucosa. J Oral Pathol Med. 2007;36:575–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0714.2007.00582.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Papadimitrakopoulou VA, Hong WK, Lee JS, et al. Low-dose isotretinoin versus beta-carotene to prevent oral carcinogenesis: long-term follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89:257–8. doi: 10.1093/jnci/89.3.257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Silverman S, Jr., Gorsky M, Lozada F. Oral leukoplakia and malignant transformation. A follow-up study of 257 patients. Cancer. 1984;53:563–8. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19840201)53:3<563::aid-cncr2820530332>3.0.co;2-f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Lee JJ, Hong WK, Hittelman WN, et al. Predicting cancer development in oral leukoplakia: ten years of translational research. Clin Cancer Res. 2000;6:1702–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Scully C, Porter S. ABC of oral health. Oral cancer. Bmj. 2000;321:97–100. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7253.97. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Napier SS, Speight PM. Natural history of potentially malignant oral lesions and conditions: an overview of the literature. J Oral Pathol Med. 2008;37:1–10. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0714.2007.00579.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Warnakulasuriya S, Reibel J, Bouquot J, Dabelsteen E. Oral epithelial dysplasia classification systems: predictive value, utility, weaknesses and scope for improvement. J Oral Pathol Med. 2008;37:127–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0714.2007.00584.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Lodi G SA, Bez C, Demarosi F, Carrassi A. Interventions for treating oral leukoplakia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2006;(Issue 3) doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001829.pub3. Art No: CD001829 DOI: 101002/14651858CD001829pub3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Lippman SM, Heymach JV. The convergent development of molecular-targeted drugs for cancer treatment and prevention. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:4035–41. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-0063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Kawaguchi H, El-Naggar AK, Papadimitrakopoulou V, et al. Podoplanin: a novel marker for oral cancer risk in patients with oral premalignancy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:354–60. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.4072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.King KE, Weinberg WC. p63: defining roles in morphogenesis, homeostasis, and neoplasia of the epidermis. Mol Carcinog. 2007;46:716–24. doi: 10.1002/mc.20337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.de Oliveira LR, Ribeiro-Silva A, Zucoloto S. Prognostic impact of p53 and p63 immunoexpression in oral squamous cell carcinoma. J Oral Pathol Med. 2007;36:191–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0714.2007.00517.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Lo Muzio L, Campisi G, Farina A, et al. Effect of p63 expression on survival in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Invest. 2007;25:464–9. doi: 10.1080/07357900701509387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Lo Muzio L, Santarelli A, Caltabiano R, et al. p63 overexpression associates with poor prognosis in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2005;36:187–94. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2004.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Oliveira LR, Ribeiro-Silva A, Costa JP, Simoes AL, Matteo MA, Zucoloto S. Prognostic factors and survival analysis in a sample of oral squamous cell carcinoma patients. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008 doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.07.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Bortoluzzi MC, Yurgel LS, Dekker NP, Jordan RC, Regezi JA. Assessment of p63 expression in oral squamous cell carcinomas and dysplasias. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004;98:698–704. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.04.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Chen YK, Hsue SS, Lin LM. Expression of p63 protein and mRNA in oral epithelial dysplasia. J Oral Pathol Med. 2005;34:232–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0714.2004.00277.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Takeda T, Sugihara K, Hirayama Y, Hirano M, Tanuma JI, Semba I. Immunohistological evaluation of Ki-67, p63, CK19 and p53 expression in oral epithelial dysplasias. J Oral Pathol Med. 2006;35:369–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0714.2006.00444.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Papadimitrakopoulou VA, Lee JJ, William WN, Jr., et al. Randomized trial of 13-cis retinoic acid compared with retinyl palmitate with or without beta-carotene in oral premalignancy. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:599–604. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.17.1850. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Choi HR, Batsakis JG, Zhan F, Sturgis E, Luna MA, El-Naggar AK. Differential expression of p53 gene family members p63 and p73 in head and neck squamous tumorigenesis. Hum Pathol. 2002;33:158–64. doi: 10.1053/hupa.2002.30722. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Khuri FR, Shin DM. Head and neck cancer chemoprevention gets a shot in the arm. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:345–7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.0913. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Thurfjell N, Coates PJ, Uusitalo T, et al. Complex p63 mRNA isoform expression patterns in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Int J Oncol. 2004;25:27–35. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Thurfjell N, Coates PJ, Boldrup L, et al. Function and importance of p63 in normal oral mucosa and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 2005;62:49–57. doi: 10.1159/000082464. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Barton CE, Tahinci E, Barbieri CE, et al. DeltaNp63 antagonizes p53 to regulate mesoderm induction in Xenopus laevis. Dev Biol. 2009;329:130–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2009.02.036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Boldrup L, Coates PJ, Gu X, Nylander K. DeltaNp63 isoforms regulate CD44 and keratins 4, 6, 14 and 19 in squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck. J Pathol. 2007;213:384–91. doi: 10.1002/path.2237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Rocco JW, Leong CO, Kuperwasser N, DeYoung MP, Ellisen LW. p63 mediates survival in squamous cell carcinoma by suppression of p73-dependent apoptosis. Cancer Cell. 2006;9:45–56. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2005.12.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Patturajan M, Nomoto S, Sommer M, et al. DeltaNp63 induces beta-catenin nuclear accumulation and signaling. Cancer Cell. 2002;1:369–79. doi: 10.1016/s1535-6108(02)00057-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Chiang CT, Chu WK, Chow SE, Chen JK. Overexpression of delta Np63 in a human nasopharyngeal carcinoma cell line downregulates CKIs and enhances cell proliferation. J Cell Physiol. 2009;219:117–22. doi: 10.1002/jcp.21656. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Yuan P, Temam S, El-Naggar A, et al. Overexpression of podoplanin in oral cancer and its association with poor clinical outcome. Cancer. 2006;107:563–9. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Wicki A, Lehembre F, Wick N, Hantusch B, Kerjaschki D, Christofori G. Tumor invasion in the absence of epithelial-mesenchymal transition: podoplanin-mediated remodeling of the actin cytoskeleton. Cancer Cell. 2006;9:261–72. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.03.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Wicki A, Christofori G. The potential role of podoplanin in tumour invasion. Br J Cancer. 2007;96:1–5. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603518. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Hackett TL, Shaheen F, Johnson A, et al. Characterization of Side Population Cells from Human Airway Epithelium. Stem Cells. 2008 doi: 10.1634/stemcells.2008-0171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Godar S, Ince TA, Bell GW, et al. Growth-inhibitory and tumor- suppressive functions of p53 depend on its repression of CD44 expression. Cell. 2008;134:62–73. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.06.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Prince ME, Sivanandan R, Kaczorowski A, et al. Identification of a subpopulation of cells with cancer stem cell properties in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104:973–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0610117104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Yang A, Zhu Z, Kapranov P, et al. Relationships between p63 binding, DNA sequence, transcription activity, and biological function in human cells. Mol Cell. 2006;24:593–602. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2006.10.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Gannot G, Gannot I, Vered H, Buchner A, Keisari Y. Increase in immune cell infiltration with progression of oral epithelium from hyperkeratosis to dysplasia and carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 2002;86:1444–8. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Katou F, Ohtani H, Watanabe Y, Nakayama T, Yoshie O, Hashimoto K. Differing phenotypes between intraepithelial and stromal lymphocytes in early-stage tongue cancer. Cancer Res. 2007;67:11195–201. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-2637. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Badoual C, Hans S, Rodriguez J, et al. Prognostic value of tumor-infiltrating CD4+ T-cell subpopulations in head and neck cancers. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:465–72. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-1886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.D'Souza G, Kreimer AR, Viscidi R, et al. Case-control study of human papillomavirus and oropharyngeal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1944–56. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa065497. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Moro JR, Iwata M, von Andriano UH. Vitamin effects on the immune system: vitamins A and D take centre stage. Nat Rev Immunol. 2008;8:685–98. doi: 10.1038/nri2378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Mao L, Lee JS, Fan YH, et al. Frequent microsatellite alterations at chromosomes 9p21 and 3p14 in oral premalignant lesions and their value in cancer risk assessment. Nat Med. 1996;2:682–5. doi: 10.1038/nm0696-682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Partridge M, Emilion G, Pateromichelakis S, A'Hern R, Phillips E, Langdon J. Allelic imbalance at chromosomal loci implicated in the pathogenesis of oral precancer, cumulative loss and its relationship with progression to cancer. Oral Oncol. 1998;34:77–83. doi: 10.1016/s1368-8375(97)00052-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Rosin MP, Cheng X, Poh C, et al. Use of allelic loss to predict malignant risk for low-grade oral epithelial dysplasia. Clin Cancer Res. 2000;6:357–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Eberhard DA, Giaccone G, Johnson BE. Biomarkers of response to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Working Group: standardization for use in the clinical trial setting. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:983–94. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.9858. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Livasy CA, Karaca G, Nanda R, et al. Phenotypic evaluation of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2006;19:264–71. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.3800528. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]