COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Tests With Self-Collected vs Health Care Worker-Collected Nasal and Throat Swab Specimens: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Self- or health care worker (HCW)-collected nasal swab specimens are the preferred sampling method to perform rapid antigen testing for COVID-19, but it is debated whether throat specimens can improve test sensitivity. Objective: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of self- and HCW-collected nasal vs throat swab specimens for COVID-19 rapid antigen testing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This per-protocol multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted from February 15 through March 25, 2022. The participants, individuals aged 16 years or older requesting a COVID-19 test for diagnostic or screening purposes, had 4 specimens collected for individual testing at 1 of 2 urban COVID-19 outpatient test centers in Copenhagen, Denmark. Interventions: Participants were randomized 1:1 to self-collected or HCW-collected nasal and throat swab specimens for rapid antigen testing. Additional HCW-collected nasal and throat swab specimens for reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were used as the reference standard. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was sensitivity to diagnose COVID-19 of a self- vs HCW-collected nasal and throat specimen for rapid antigen testing compared with RT-PCR. Results: Of 2941 participants enrolled, 2674 (90.9%) had complete test results and were included in the final analysis (1535 [57.4%] women; median age, 40 years [IQR, 28-55 years]); 1074 (40.2%) had COVID-19 symptoms, and 827 (30.9%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Health care worker-collected throat specimens had higher mean sensitivity than HCW-collected nasal specimens for rapid antigen testing (69.4% [95% CI, 65.1%-73.6%] vs 60.0% [95% CI, 55.4%-64.5%]). However, a subgroup analysis of symptomatic participants found that self-collected nasal specimens were more sensitive than self-collected throat specimens for rapid antigen testing (mean sensitivity, 71.5% [95% CI, 65.3%-77.6%] vs 58.0% [95% CI, 51.2%-64.7%]; P < .001). Combining nasal and throat specimens increased sensitivity for HCW- and self-collected specimens by 21.4 and 15.5 percentage points, respectively, compared with a single nasal specimen (both P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that a single HCW-collected throat specimen had higher sensitivity for rapid antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 than a nasal specimen. In contrast, the self-collected nasal specimens had higher sensitivity than throat specimens for symptomatic participants. Adding a throat specimen to the standard practice of collecting a single nasal specimen could improve sensitivity for rapid antigen testing in health care and home-based settings. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05209178.

Liquid Biopsies with Circulating Plasma HPV-DNA Measurements-A Clinically Applicable Surveillance Tool for Patients with HPV-Positive Oropharyngeal Cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of cell-free human papillomavirus-DNA (cfHPV-DNA) measurements in liquid biopsies in predicting disease in patients with HPV-positive/p16-positive (HPV+/p16+) oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study. Plasma samples were collected before treatment, serially after curative intended therapy at follow-up visits 2 weeks, and 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, and 30 months after treatment. A droplet digital PCR assay comprising eight HPV genotypes was used. HPV genotypes found in plasma and tumor tissue were compared. We correlated biopsy- or imaging-verified tumor progression to cfHPV-DNA in follow-up samples. RESULTS: We enrolled 72 patients with HPV+/p16+ OPSCC. Baseline sensitivity for cfHPV-DNA detection was 97.2% (95% confidence interval, 90.3%-99.6%). CfHPV-DNA copy number/milliliter plasma correlated with tumor stage. We found a 100% concordance between HPV genotype in tumor tissue and plasma. Fifty-four patients were followed with serial blood samples for a median of 19.7 months (interquartile range, 13.5-25.5 months). Forty-one patients had undetectable plasma cfHPV-DNA in all follow-up samples, and none developed recurrences. Thirteen patients were classified as cfHPV-DNA-positive in a follow-up plasma sample. Of these, five patients developed a recurrence, and three had residual cancer. It was possible to detect cfHPV-DNA in plasma 97 to 166 days prior to the proven recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, to date, our study, comprising the largest study of patients with HPV+/p16+ OPSCC, using an ultrasensitive multiplex HPV gene panel, revealed a high sensitivity of cfHPV-DNA detection in the liquid biopsies. We recommend serial plasma HPV samples for clinical monitoring of patients with HPV+/p16+ OPSCC.

Higher SARS-CoV-2 detection of oropharyngeal compared with nasopharyngeal or saliva specimen for molecular testing: a multicentre randomised comparative accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Testing is critical for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the best sampling method remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), oropharyngeal swab (OPS) or saliva specimen collection has the highest detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing. METHODS: We conducted a randomised clinical trial at two COVID-19 outpatient test centres where NPS, OPS and saliva specimens were collected by healthcare workers in different orders for reverse transcriptase PCR testing. The SARS-CoV-2 detection rate was calculated as the number positive by a specific sampling method divided by the number in which any of the three sampling methods was positive. As secondary outcomes, test-related discomfort was measured with an 11-point numeric scale and cost-effectiveness was calculated. RESULTS: Among 23 102 adults completing the trial, 381 (1.65%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive. The SARS-CoV-2 detection rate was higher for OPSs, 78.7% (95% CI 74.3 to 82.7), compared with NPSs, 72.7% (95% CI 67.9 to 77.1) (p=0.049) and compared with saliva sampling, 61.9% (95% CI 56.9 to 66.8) (p<0.001). The discomfort score was highest for NPSs, at 5.76 (SD, 2.52), followed by OPSs, at 3.16 (SD 3.16) and saliva samples, at 1.03 (SD 18.8), p<0.001 between all measurements. Saliva specimens were associated with the lowest cost, and the incremental costs per detected SARS-CoV-2 infection for NPSs and OPSs were US$3258 and US$1832, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: OPSs were associated with higher SARS-CoV-2 detection and lower test-related discomfort than NPSs for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Saliva sampling had the lowest SARS-CoV-2 detection but was the least costly strategy for mass testing. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04715607.

Impact of specific high-risk human papillomavirus genotypes on survival in oropharyngeal cancer.

The increases observed in incidence and survival of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) have been attributed to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, but the survival-impact of specific genotypes is poorly understood. We investigated the potential influence of HPV genotypes on survival in HPV-positive (HPV+) OPSCC. All patients with HPV+/p16+ OPSCC and available genotype data within the period 2011 to 2017 in Eastern Denmark were included. Descriptive statistics on clinical and tumor data, as well as overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) with Cox hazard models and Kaplan-Meier plots were performed. Overall, 769 HPV+/p16+ OPSCC patients were included of which genotype HPV16 accounted for 86% (n = 662). Compared to high-risk non-HPV16 genotypes (HR non-HPV16), HPV16 patients were younger at diagnosis (median years, 60 vs 64), had a higher male to female ratio (3.7:1 vs 2.1:1), and lower performance scores of ≤1 (90%, n = 559, vs 81%, n = 74). Regarding 5-year OS and RFS, no difference was observed between HPV16 and HR non-HPV16 patients. Subgrouping the HR non-HPV16 group into HPV33 (n = 57), HPV35 (n = 26) and "other genotypes" (n = 24) a significantly worse OS in the "other genotypes" group (hazard rate: 2.33, P = .027) was shown. With similar survival results between HPV16 and non-HPV16 genotypes, genotyping in OPSCC is interesting from an epidemiological point of view as well as in vaccination programs, but not a necessary addition in prognostication of HPV+/p16+ OPSCC.

A Contemporary Systematic Review on Repartition of HPV-Positivity in Oropharyngeal Cancer Worldwide.

Significant variation in human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) across countries ranging from 11% in Brazil to 74% in New Zealand has been reported earlier. The aim of this study was to systematically review the most recently published studies on the occurrence of HPV in OPSCC globally. PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for articles assessing the occurrence of HPV+ OPSCC published between January 2016 and May 2021. Studies with a study period including 2015 and the following years were included. Both HPV DNA and/or p16 were accepted as indicators of HPV+ OPSCC. 31 studies were enrolled comprising 49,564 patients with OPSCC (range 12-42,024 patients per study) from 26 different countries covering all continents. The lowest occurrences of HPV+ OPSCC were observed in India (0%) and Spain (10%) and the highest occurrences were observed in Lebanon (85%) and Sweden (70%). We observed great variation in HPV prevalence in OPSCC worldwide varying from 0% to 85%. The highest occurrences of HPV+ OPSCC were found in general in Northern European countries, USA, Lebanon, China, and South Korea. We observed a trend of increase in HPV-positivity, indicating a mounting burden of HPV+ OPSCC.

Impact of p16-overexpression on overall and progression-free survival outcomes in oral cavity squamous cell carcinomas: A semi-national, population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: Human papillomavirus infection and p16-overexpression is a principal cause and favorable prognostic factor for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas but the value as prognostic marker in oral cavity squamous cell carcinomas (OSCC) is undetermined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients diagnosed with OSCC in Eastern Denmark in the period 2008-2014 were enrolled. Survival estimates were evaluated as overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) by Kaplan-Meier survival curves and multivariate Cox-regression analyses. RESULTS: We included 575 patients from which 13% (n = 69) had p16-positive tumors. The 5-year OS were 55% and 62% for the p16-negative and p16-positive patients, respectively, and the 5-year PFS were 48% and 50%. In a multivariate survival analysis, p16-positivity showed no significant influence on OS (HR: 1.06 [0.67-1.70], p = 0.79) and PFS (HR: 1.11 [0.76-1.63], p = 0.58). CONCLUSION: In this population-based cohort of non-selected OSCC patients, we found no difference in survival outcomes when stratified on p16-overexpression status.

Rate of locoregional recurrence among patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma with known HPV status: a systematic review.

Background: We aimed to review systematically the literature on locoregional recurrence rates in patients with HPV-positive and -negative oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC).Methods: PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched using key words such as human papillomavirus, oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma with local, regional, and locoregional recurrence.Results: Nine studies (2974 patients with known HPV-status, 59% HPV-positive) were included. Among the HPV-positive and -negative patients, 69% and 58% had lymph node metastasis at diagnosis. At a median time to recurrence ranging from 8.4 to 13.2 months among the included studies, we found that a weighted average of 9% and 26% for HPV-positive and -negative patients experienced locoregional recurrence. Overall, the median follow-up time ranged from 21 to 83 months among the included studies.Conclusion: Recurrence rates for HPV-positive and -negative OPSCC patients were 9% and 26%, respectively, equating to an almost three times higher rate of locoregional recurrence among HPV-negative patients compared to HPV-positive patients.

Incidence of head and neck cancer in children: A Danish nationwide study from 1978 to 2014.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric head and neck malignancies are rare and only a few descriptive epidemiological studies have been published. Using unique nationwide registries, we report age-specific incidence rates of head and neck cancer (HNC) among children during four decades. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Danish Cancer Registry. We included children aged 0-14 years diagnosed between January 1, 1978 and December 31, 2014 with extra-orbital, nonskin and nonbone HNC. Patients were divided into nine groups in regard to tumor location: oral cavity, oropharynx, nasopharynx, hypopharynx, thyroid, major salivary glands, larynx, and middle ear. Based on the World Health Organization standard population and Danish age-specific population counts, age-adjusted incidence rates (AAIR) and average annual percentage change (AAPC) were calculated and examined for trends. RESULTS: In total, 169 children (55.6% females) were registered with a malignant tumor in the head and neck region. The AAIR increased with an AAPC of 2.2% (95% CI, 0.8-3.7%). Females showed an AAIR of 0.54 per 100,000 person years compared to that of males, with 0.41 per 100,000 person years (P < 0.01). The AAIR was higher among children aged 10-14 years compared to 0-9-year-old children (P < 0.01). Based on morphology, a significant increase in AAIR was observed for sarcomas, with an increase of 0.16-0.27 per 100,000 person years (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence rate of pediatric HNC was higher among females and evidence of increasing rates was observed during 1978-2014, explained by an increase mainly in sarcomas.