Expression of p16 in squamous cell carcinoma of the mobile tongue is independent of HPV infection despite presence of the HPV-receptor syndecan-1.

BACKGROUND: Tongue squamous cell carcinoma (TSCC) is increasing in incidence, especially among young patients and preferably females. Infection with human papilloma virus (HPV) has been suggested as a cause of SCC in the head and neck, and the proportion of oropharyngeal cancers caused by HPV has steadily increased. METHODS: Samples from 109 patients with primary TSCC were analysed for the presence of HPV16 by in situ hybridisation and for expression of its surrogate marker p16 and the HPV receptor syndecan-1 by immunhistochemistry. RESULTS: No evidence of HPV16 DNA was observed in the tumours, although one-third showed p16 staining. There was no difference in the expression of the primary HPV receptor, syndecan-1, between TSCC and a group of tonsil SCC. CONCLUSION: Whereas p16 is expressed in some TSCCs, HPV16 is undetectable, therefore, p16 cannot be used as a surrogate marker for high-risk HPV-infection in this tumour. Despite presence of the HPV-receptor syndecan-1 in TSCC, HPV prefers the tonsillar environment. Lack of p16 associates with worse prognosis primarily in patients aged ⩽40 years with tongue SCC. The improved prognosis seen in p16-positive TSCC can be due to induction of a senescent phenotype or an inherent radiosensitivity due to the ability of p16 to inhibit homologous recombination repair.

Mucosal disease series. Number III. Mucous membrane pemphigoid.

Mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP) is a sub-epithelial vesiculobullous disorder. It is now quite evident that a number of sub-epithelial vesiculobullous disorders may produce similar clinical pictures, and also that a range of variants of MMP exist, with antibodies directed against various hemidesmosomal components or components of the epithelial basement membrane. The term immune-mediated sub-epithelial blistering diseases (IMSEBD) has therefore been used. Immunological differences may account for the significant differences in their clinical presentation and responses to therapy, but unfortunately data on this are few. The diagnosis and management of IMSEBD on clinical grounds alone is impossible and a full history, general, and oral examination, and biopsy with immunostaining are now invariably required, sometimes supplemented with other investigations. No single treatment regimen reliably controls all these disorders, and it is not known if the specific subsets of MMP will respond to different drugs. Currently, apart from improving oral hygiene, immunomodulatory-especially immunosuppressive-therapy is typically used to control oral lesions. The present paper reviews pemphigoid, describing the present understanding of this fascinating clinical phenotype, summarising the increasing number of subsets with sometimes-different natural histories and immunological features, and outlining current clinical practice.

Oral tuberculosis: a clinical evaluation of 42 cases.

OBJECTIVES: A retrospective review of a large series of oro-facial cases of tuberculosis to analyse clinical, histopathological, and radiological aspects, as well as those of chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 42 cases of tuberculosis of the oro-facial region were examined. Thirteen patients had a primary form and 29 a secondary form of the disease. Diagnosis was based on careful clinical examination, Mantoux reaction, histopathological examination, microbiological cultures and immunological investigation with the detection of antibodies against Mycobacteria in the patients' serum (ELISA). RESULTS: Cases examined consisted of 27 males and 15 females. The age range was 3 to 73 years (mean age 31 years). Clinical manifestations comprised oral ulcers in 69.1%, bone involvement in 21.4%, and salivary gland and/or lymph node involvement in 14.3%. A total of 79.4% patients with secondary disease had pulmonary lesions, 15 of whom showed clinical and radiological signs of activity; there was one case of bilateral renal lesions and two of skin lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Oro-facial tuberculosis is often difficult to diagnose and it should be an important consideration in the differential diagnosis of lesions that appear in the oral cavity. The most important diagnostic tools remain a careful clinical evaluation, biopsy for histologic study, as well as acid-fast stains, culture, and immunological assays, and skin testing.