SUMMARY: Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) is a double stranded DNA virus and is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the U.S. It was responsible for over 25,000 cancers between 2004 and 2007 in the U.S. and the incidence is rapidly increasing due to changes in sexual practices. Even though the low risk HPV types such as HPV-6 and HPV-11 have been well known to cause benign lesions such as condylomata (genital warts), low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix and laryngeal papillomas, the high risk HPV types such as HPV-16 and HPV-18 have been of major concern because of their malignant potential. Since the implication of HPV-16 and HPV-18 in cervical cancer dating back to the early 1990’s, these HPV subtypes have also been found responsible for 45-90% of oropharyngeal cancers and 90% of anal cancers. HPV in tumor tissue can be detected by immunohistochemistry testing for P16 expression and confirmed with HPV DNA PCR.
Chronic immunosuppression as seen in patients with HIV and in patients undergoing solid organ transplantation, may increase the risk for HPV infections. Patients with HPV associated oropharyngeal cancer typically are younger males, tend not to smoke or drink and present with poorly differentiated, non keratinizing tumors with basaloid morphology, compared to those with HPV negative tumors. Clinical characteristics of HPV positive oropharyngeal cancer patients with best outcomes include, those with fewer than 10 pack year smoking history and lower tumor stage. Several retrospective trials as well as some small prospective studies have shown that HPV positive oropharygeal cancers when treated with chemoradiation have significantly higher response rates, progression free survival, overall survival and better local and regional disease control. In the TAX 324 randomized phase III trial, patients received induction treatment with 3 cycles of TAXOTERE®, Cisplatin and 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) or Cisplatin and 5-FU followed by chemoradiation with concurrent PARAPLATIN® (Carboplatin). Even though the 3 drug induction treatment group had superior outcomes compared to those who received 2 drug induction regimen in the intent to treat population, on retrospective analysis, patients with HPV positive oropharyngeal cancer had a significantly longer 5 year progression free survival (78% vs 28%) and overall survival, with an 80% reduction in mortality (HR=0.20, P<0.0001), compared to HPV negative patients, regardless of induction treatment. Other studies have shown that HPV positive patients who undergo surgery alone for oropharyngeal cancer do not appear to reap these favorable benefits, suggesting that the improved prognosis in the HPV positive patients with oropharyngeal cancer is related to chemotherapy and radiation. It also appears that HPV positive patients with oropharyngeal cancer have a better prognosis with treatment when their tumors are P53 wild type and express P16. With regards to EGFR and P16, there appears to be an inverse correlation between P16 and EGFR expression and patients with tumors expressing P16 and not EGFR have a significantly higher 5 year disease free and overall survival compared to those whose tumors overexpress EGFR but not P16. This information may have significant therapeutic implications and studies are underway trying to address this group of patients with targeted and less intense treatments. It should be noted that HPV positive status has a favorable prognostic value only for oropharyngeal primary cancers and not for other cancers of the head and neck.
With regards to anal carcinoma, there appears to be a relationship between cervical, anogenital and oropharyngeal cancer suggesting a genital-anal-oral transmission of HPV. Patients with HIV infection have a higher risk of developing HPV associated anal carcinoma and antiretroviral therapy does not decrease this risk. Anal Pap test is recommended annually for high risk patients including those with a history of anogental warts and women with abnormal cervical or vulvar cytology. For patients with anal carcinoma, positive HPV status does not confer a favorable prognosis as is the case for patients with oropharygeal carcinoma. GARDASIL®, a quadrivalent vaccine targeting HPV-6,11,16 and 18 as well as CERVARIX®, a bivalent vaccine targeting HPV-16 and 18 are presently available in the U.S. They are recommended for both females and males at an age as early as 9 years and given as a 3 shot series, to prevent HPV related Cervical Intraepithelial lesions/cervical cancer and genital warts/Anal Intraepithelial Neoplasia respectively. The authors conclude that HPV infection and associated malignancies are preventable and attempts should be made to eradicate this virus. Zandberg DP, Bhargava R, Badin S, et al. CA Cancer J Clin 2013;63:57-81


The AZURE investigators conducted a study to determine whether the addition of RECLAST® (Zoledronic acid) to standard adjuvant therapy would improve disease outcomes in patients with early-stage breast cancer. They noted that in the subset analysis, the addition of RECLAST® significantly improved disease free survival and overall survival in postmenopausal patients, independent of estrogen receptor status, tumor stage, and lymph node involvement (N Engl J Med 2011;365:1396-1405). With this background, the authors belonging to the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG), conducted a meta-analysis and reviewed data from 15 years of bisphosphonate trials, which included 36 trials of adjuvant bisphosphonates in breast cancer and involved over 17,000 pre and postmenopausal women. RECLAST® (Zoledronic acid) and Clodronate were the most common bisphosphonates used in these trials. The primary outcomes analyzed were time to distant recurrence, local recurrence, new second primary breast cancer (ipsilateral or contralateral), time to first distant recurrence (ignoring any previous locoregional or contralateral recurrences), and breast cancer mortality. Planned subset analyses included site of recurrence, site of first distant metastasis (bone vs other), menopausal status (pre, peri and post) type of bisphosphonate (aminobisphosphonates such as RECLAST® or Clodronate) and drug schedule of bisphosphonate therapy (for bone protection vs advanced cancer). Adjuvant bisphosphonates resulted in a 34% reduction in the risk of bone recurrence (P = 0.00001) and a 17% reduction in the risk of breast cancer death (P =0.004). This benefit was seen regardless of estrogen receptor status, nodal status or whether chemotherapy was used or not. Bisphosphonates had no significant impact on non-breast cancer related deaths, contralateral breast cancer or loco-regional recurrence. In this meta-analysis, all these benefits were only seen in postmenopausal women and premenopausal women had no benefit on any disease outcomes with bisphosphonates. The authors emphasized that low estrogen environment as is seen in postmenopausal women, or women rendered menopausal by suppression of ovarian function is a prerequisite for adjuvant bisphosphonate activity. Based on this large meta-analysis, the authors recommended the use of RECLAST® once every six months or oral Clodronate, where available. Because of paucity of data, they do not recommend the use of weekly dose of oral bisphosphonates, often used to prevent osteoporosis, to achieve these benefits. Coleman R, Gnant M, Paterson A, et al. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2013; San Antonio, TX. Abstract S4-07.
The SELECT trial, which began in 2001, was stopped early in 2008, as Selenium and Vitamin E, taken alone or together for an average of five and a half years did not decrease the incidence of prostate cancer. In 2011, an update on the SELECT trial data suggested that men who were randomized to the vitamin E alone had a 17 percent increased risk of prostate cancer compared to those men taking placebo. The authors in this case–cohort study continued follow up of the SELECT trial participants and with the Selenium levels data from toenail clippings, compared the effect of Selenium and Vitamin E, taken either alone or together, on the risk of prostate cancer, among 1739 men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer, of whom 489 participants developed high-grade prostate cancer. The control group for comparison was a random sample of 3117 men without prostate cancer and they were matched to the cases by race and age. It was noted that an individual’s baseline Selenium level, in the absence of supplementation, was not associated with prostate cancer risk. However, in men who had high baseline Selenium levels, Selenium supplements almost doubled (91%) the risk of high grade prostate cancer (P=0.007). Conversely, Vitamin E supplements had no effect among men with high baseline Selenium levels but doubled the risk of high grade prostate cancer among men with low baseline Selenium levels. Frankel et al. in an accompanying editorial point out that the dose of Vitamin E in the SELECT trial was significantly higher (400 IU/day) than the dose that was selected in the Alpha-Tocopherol Beta Carotene (ATBC) Cancer Prevention trial (50 IU/day), a study that was designed to test Vitamin E and beta carotene for lung cancer prevention in smokers. In the ATBC trial, a decrease in the incidence of prostate cancer incidence was observed, although this was a secondary finding and this study was not designed to determine prostate cancer risk. They comment that high doses of Vitamin E (Alpha-Tocopherol), suppresses the more potentially beneficial serum Gamma-Tocopherol which is the prevalent dietary form of Vitamin E in the United States. Selenium deficiency in the U.S. is not common and any benefit with Selenium supplements can only be seen in those who are Selenium deficient and high doses may be detrimental. The authors concluded that in the SELECT trial, the combination of both Vitamin E and Selenium did not reduce the risk of prostate cancer or any other cancer or heart disease and was in fact harmful for a significant number of individuals. Therefore, men 55 years of age or more should avoid Vitamin E or Selenium supplements at doses that exceed the recommended dietary intake. Kristal AR, Darke AK, Morris JS, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst; First published online 22 February 2014, doi: 10.1093/jnci/djt456
The FDA granted accelerated approval of IMBRUVICA® for the treatment of patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) who had received at least one prior therapy. This approval was based on the outcomes in a select group of 48 patients who were a part of a larger group of 85 patients, enrolled in a multicenter single arm phase Ib/II trial. The median age was 67 years and 71% were male. Patients had a median number of 4 prior treatments and had an ECOG PS of 0-1. Patients in this group received IMBRUVICA® 420 mg PO daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The overall response rate was 58.3% as assessed by an independent review committee. No complete responses were seen and the response duration ranged from 5.6 to over 24 months. This analysis did not include data from those patients enrolled in the trial who received IMBRUVICA® 840 mg PO daily or those with Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma (N=37). The most common toxicities included fatigue, myalgias and arthralgias, cytopenias, nausea, diarrhea, fever and rash. Transient asymptomatic increase in lymphocyte count with resolution of lymphadenopathy and splenomegaly was common but resolved with continued treatment. The confirmatory RESONATE trial is a multicenter, randomized, open-label Phase III study in which single agent IMBRUVICA® was compared to single agent ARZERRA® (Ofatumumab) in patients with relapsed or refractory CLL or Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma . This was a part of the requirement by the FDA. Enrolled patients had measurable nodal disease and were not eligible for treatment with purine analog-based therapy. In this study, 391 patients who had received at least one prior therapy, were enrolled and randomized to receive 420 mg of IMBRUVICA® orally once daily or ARZERRA® given intravenously. Treatment was given over a period of 24 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients randomized to the ARZERRA® group on disease progression were allowed to receive treatment with IMBRUVICA®. The primary endpoint of this study was progression-free survival and the secondary endpoint was overall survival. Following recommendations from the Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC), the study was stopped earlier, as the primary endpoint as well as an important secondary endpoint of the study were met. At the planned interim analysis, patients in the IMBRUVICA® group showed a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival, the primary endpoint of the study as well as a statistically significant improvement in overall survival, the secondary endpoint of the trial. This data confirmed the efficacy of IMBRUVICA® and gives patients with CLL, an important new treatment option. Byrd JC, Furman RR, Coutre SE, et al. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:32-42