Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective study demonstrates improved response and survival with p16 positivity in locally advanced vulvar cancer, indicating its prognostic utility for treatment stratification.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic significance of tumor p16(INK4a) expression in predicting treatment response and survival in patients with locally advanced squamous cell vulvar cancer (LAVC) undergoing chemoradiotherapy (CRT). METHODS: Retrospective data were collected from patients with stage II-IVB disease managed with definitive or neoadjuvant CRT between January 2016 and March 2024. Clinical response to CRT and survival outcomes according to tumor p16 expression were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 61 patients, 39 (63.9%) had p16-negative (p16-) tumors, 22 (36.1%) had p16-positive (p16+) tumors. p16 positivity was linked to higher complete clinical response (cCR) rates (odds ratio [OR]=9.8; p<0.001) and, after adjusting for tumor size, lymph node status and radiation dose, was the only independent predictor of cCR (OR=7.0; p=0.003). The 3-year progression-free survival (PFS), locoregional control (LRC), and overall survival (OS) rates were 12.6%, 17.3%, and 19.5% for p16- tumors, 60.4% (p<0.001), 80.4% (p<0.001), and 64.9% (p<0.001) for p16+ tumors. Among patients who achieved a cCR, the 3-year PFS, LRC and OS were 14.3%, 14.3%, and 33.3% for p16- tumors, 69.6% (p=0.001), 85.7% (p<0.001), and 80.2% (p=0.008) for p16+ tumors. p16 positivity was independently associated with improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR]=0.15, p<0.001), LRC (HR=0.09, p<0.001), and OS (HR=0.16, p<0.001). Larger tumor size adversely affected all outcomes, while age, lymph node status, and RT dose were not significant predictors. CONCLUSION: p16(INK4a) expression predicts treatment response, locoregional disease control and survival in LAVC undergoing upfront CRT. These findings highlight the importance of integrating p16 expression into treatment protocols and future clinical trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Federico et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: