Objectives: We compared the efficacy of automated and manual human papilloma virus (HPV) in situ hybridization (ISH) and p16 immunohistochemical staining (IHC) in fine needle aspiration (FNA) of metastatic oropharyngeal carcinoma. Study Design: A total of 41 FNA cell blocks (CB) were evaluated. HPV ISH was interpreted as positive if a minimum of one tumor cell showed punctate dot-like nuclear positivity. p16 was interpreted as positive if ≥70% of tumor cells showed brown nuclear and cytoplasmic staining. Results: Thirty of 41 CB (73%) were positive by automated HPV ISH, 25 of 41 CB (60%) with manual HPV ISH. Eighteen of 41 CB (43%) were positive for p16 IHC. Twelve of 41 CB (29%) with automated HPV ISH and 2 of 41 CB (4%) with the manual method were positive at 10× magnification. Three of 41 CB (7%) with automated HPV ISH and 14 of 41 CB (34%) with the manual method were positive at 20× magnification. Fifteen of 41 CB (36%) with automated HPV ISH and 9 of 41 CB (21%) with the manual method were positive at 40-60× magnification. Conclusion: Automated HPV ISH plays a more significant role in determining the HPV status in CB. However, the failure to use high magnification in the evaluation can give false-negative results.

Keywords:
Fine needle aspiration, Human papilloma virus in situ hybridization, Metastatic oropharyngeal carcinoma, p16 immunohistochemical staining
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.