Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
    • CME
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Clinical Cancer Research
Clinical Cancer Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
    • CME
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Precision Medicine and Imaging

Antibody Responses to Cancer Antigens Identify Patients with a Poor Prognosis among HPV-Positive and HPV-Negative Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients

Simon Laban, Dominik S. Gangkofner, Dana Holzinger, Lea Schroeder, Stefan B. Eichmüller, Inka Zörnig, Dirk Jäger, Gunnar Wichmann, Andreas Dietz, Martina A. Broglie, Christel C. Herold-Mende, Gerhard Dyckhoff, Paolo Boscolo-Rizzo, Jasmin Ezić, Ralf Marienfeld, Peter Möller, Johann M. Kraus, Gunnar Völkel, Hans A. Kestler, Cornelia Brunner, Patrick J. Schuler, Marlene C. Wigand, Marie-Nicole Theodoraki, Johannes Doescher, Thomas K. Hoffmann, Michael Pawlita, Tim Waterboer and Julia Butt
Simon Laban
1Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Ulm, Head & Neck Cancer Center of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: simon.laban@uniklinik-ulm.de
Dominik S. Gangkofner
1Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Ulm, Head & Neck Cancer Center of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dana Holzinger
2Infections and Cancer Epidemiology (F022), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lea Schroeder
2Infections and Cancer Epidemiology (F022), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stefan B. Eichmüller
3Research Group GMP & T Cell Therapy (D210), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Inka Zörnig
4National Center for Tumor Disease (NCT) and Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
5Applied Tumor Immunity (D120), National Center for Tumor Disease (NCT) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dirk Jäger
4National Center for Tumor Disease (NCT) and Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
5Applied Tumor Immunity (D120), National Center for Tumor Disease (NCT) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gunnar Wichmann
6Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andreas Dietz
6Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martina A. Broglie
7Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christel C. Herold-Mende
8Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
9Department of Neurosurgery, Division of Experimental Neurosurgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gerhard Dyckhoff
8Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paolo Boscolo-Rizzo
10Department of Neurosciences, Section of Otolaryngology and Regional Center for Head and Neck Cancer, University of Padova, Treviso, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jasmin Ezić
1Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Ulm, Head & Neck Cancer Center of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ralf Marienfeld
11Institute of Pathology, University Medical Center Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Möller
11Institute of Pathology, University Medical Center Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Johann M. Kraus
12Institute of Medical Systems Biology, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gunnar Völkel
12Institute of Medical Systems Biology, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hans A. Kestler
12Institute of Medical Systems Biology, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cornelia Brunner
1Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Ulm, Head & Neck Cancer Center of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patrick J. Schuler
1Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Ulm, Head & Neck Cancer Center of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marlene C. Wigand
1Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Ulm, Head & Neck Cancer Center of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marie-Nicole Theodoraki
1Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Ulm, Head & Neck Cancer Center of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Johannes Doescher
1Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Ulm, Head & Neck Cancer Center of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas K. Hoffmann
1Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Ulm, Head & Neck Cancer Center of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Pawlita
2Infections and Cancer Epidemiology (F022), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tim Waterboer
2Infections and Cancer Epidemiology (F022), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Julia Butt
2Infections and Cancer Epidemiology (F022), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-1490 Published December 2019
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Purpose: The identification of high-risk patients within human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive and -negative head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is needed for improved treatment and surveillance strategies. In this study, we set out to discover antibody responses (AR) with prognostic impact in HNSCC stratified by HPV status.

Experimental Design: A fluorescent bead–based multiplex serology assay on 29 cancer antigens (16 cancer-testis antigens, 5 cancer-retina antigens, and 8 oncogenes) and 29 HPV antigens was performed in samples of 362 patients with HNSCC from five independent cohorts (153 HPV positive, 209 HPV negative). A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model with bootstrapping (M = 1000) was used for validation of prognostic antibody responses.

Results: Antibody response to any of the cancer antigens was found in 257 of 362 patients (71%). In HPV-negative patients, antibody responses to c-myc, MAGE-A1, -A4, and Rhodopsin E2 (combined as ARhigh risk) were significantly associated with shorter overall survival. In HPV-positive patients, antibody responses to IMP-1 were discovered as a negative prognostic factor. ARhigh risk (HR = 1.76) and antibody responses to IMP-1 (HR = 3.28) were confirmed as independent markers for a poor prognosis in a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model with bootstrapping (M = 1000).

Conclusions: We identified antibody responses to cancer antigens that associate with a dismal prognosis in patients with HNSCC beyond HPV-positive status. ARhigh risk may be used to detect HPV-negative patients with an extraordinarily bad prognosis. Most importantly, antibody response to IMP-1 may serve as a marker for a subgroup of HPV-positive patients who present with a poor prognosis similar to that in HPV-negative patients.

Translational Relevance

Human papillomavirus (HPV)-driven head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is characterized by a much better prognosis than HPV-negative HNSCC. Recent studies focus on deescalation of treatment. However, among HPV-positive patients, a subgroup with a dismal prognosis exists. To prevent harm from treatment deescalation for such patients, biomarkers for high-risk patient identification among HPV-positive patients are needed. We analyzed antibody responses (AR) to nonviral cancer antigens for HPV-positive and HPV-negative patients (n = 362) in five independent cohorts treated at large European cancer centers. Antibodies to IMP-1 were associated with reduced overall survival in HPV-positive patients, and antibody responses to c-myc, MAGE-A1, MAGE-A4, and Rhodopsin E2 (combined as ARhigh risk) in HPV-negative patients, respectively. Our findings were validated in a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model with bootstrapping (M = 1000). In HPV-positive and -negative HNSCC, antibody responses to cancer antigens may be used to identify high-risk patients.

Introduction

Globally, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is diagnosed in almost 900,000 cases annually resulting in approximately 450,000 cancer-related deaths per year (1). Human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC; ref. 2) and head and neck cancer of unknown primary (CUP; ref. 3) have been recognized as distinct entities of HNSCC causally associated with HPV. Clinically, a significant prognostic advantage for HPV-positive OPSCC has been determined in numerous studies for different primary treatment strategies (4, 5). However, 5-year overall survival (OS) rates of 70%–80% indicate the existence of a subgroup with a dismal prognosis within HPV-positive patients. To date, there is no robust biomarker to detect such patients.

Cancer antigens are immunogenic proteins or peptides that can be recognized by the immune system. Shared cancer antigens include germ-line antigens that are exclusively expressed in tumor tissue such as cancer-testis antigens (6, 7) or cancer-retina antigens (8), oncogenes overexpressed in cancer tissue such as p53 (9), and foreign antigens such as viral antigens (10). Whereas antibody responses (AR) to viral antigens can be used to identify HPV-positive patients (3, 11–14), antibody responses to shared, nonviral antigens may play an important role as prognostic markers in both HPV-positive and HPV-negative HNSCC (15, 16).

The aim of this study was to define the potential prognostic impact of such antibody responses to cancer antigens in patients with HNSCC stratified by HPV status.

Materials and Methods

The study was performed in accordance with the EQUATOR Network CONSORT Guidelines for prognostic studies, namely the Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK Guidelines; ref. 17).

Patients

In this study, 362 patients with curative treatment for histologically diagnosed HNSCC, an available serum or plasma sample taken prior to the initiation of treatment and written informed consent according to the Helsinki Declaration II, were selected. Patients were treated per institutional guidelines at five large head and neck cancer centers, namely University Medical Centers Ulm, Heidelberg Leipzig (Germany), Padua (Italy), and St. Gallen (Switzerland; Supplementary Fig. S1). The American Joint Committee on Cancer, cancer staging manual version 7 was used for classification of tumor–node–metastasis and disease stage.

HPV status

HPV status was determined at each center according to institutional standards. For n = 294 patients, a multiplex HPV-DNA PCR (GP5+/GP6+ primers followed by Sanger sequencing for HPV typing as described previously; ref. 18) and p16 IHC (n = 254) was performed. For n = 146 patients, HPV E6*I mRNA status (19, 20) was available. Molecular HPV status was considered positive if two of the following three parameters were positive: HPV DNA of known high-risk types, HPV-16 E6*I RNA, and p16 IHC. All other combinations were considered HPV negative. Molecular HPV status showed a significant correlation with the results of HPV serology (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.775; P < 0.001). Thus, for patients lacking data for determination of the molecular HPV status, primarily non-oropharyngeal cancers, results from HPV serology to high-risk types were used as a surrogate parameter resulting in a combined marker HPV (mol/ser).

Material

Serum or plasma samples were prospectively collected prior to treatment initiation, aliquoted, and stored at −20°C until use. Prospective sample collection was in accordance with local ethics committee approvals.

Cancer antigen serology

Full-length proteins of selected cancer antigens were generated for multiplex serology as described previously (21–24). The cancer antigen panel is shown in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Cancer antigen panel for multiplex serology

In brief, genes encoding for 16 cancer-testis antigens, five cancer-retina antigens, eight oncogenes, 29 HPV antigens (from eight high-risk HPV types), and two control antigens (JC and BK virus major capsid protein VP1) were cloned into the pGEX4T3 tag vector for expression in E. coli BL21 as fusion proteins with N-terminal glutathione-S-transferase (GST) and a small C-terminal tagging epitope (tag) as described previously (23, 25). GST-tag fusion protein without insert was used to determine serologic background. Anti-GST (GE Healthcare), anti-tag, and anti-mouse horseradish peroxidase secondary antibodies (Dianova) were used to confirm full-length protein expression and protein integrity.

Multiplex serology was performed as described previously (21–23, 25). For each antigen and bead set, 2,500 glutathione-casein–coated beads per sample were used and sera or plasma were measured at 1:1,000 dilutions. Reporter fluorescence of the beads was determined with the Bio-Plex Analyzer (Bio-Rad) and expressed as mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) of at least 100 beads per set per well. Antigen-specific reactivity was calculated as the difference between antigen-MFI, GST-tag-MFI, and a blank. This value was used for further analyses. Cut-off values were determined graphically for nonviral antigens based on visual inspection of percentile plots (26). For viral antigens, cut-off values were available from previous studies (12).

Statistical analysis

For statistical analysis, the SAMPL guidelines were respected (27). IBM SPSS statistics version 25.0 was used for statistical analysis unless indicated otherwise.

Survival data were available for 360 of 362 patients. OS was defined as the time interval from diagnosis until death. Disease-specific survival (DSS) was defined as the time interval from diagnosis until cancer-related death. Non-cancer–related deaths were not counted as events for DSS. Survival analyses were performed and graphed with SPSS using the Kaplan–Meier method. Analyses with <5 patients in one of the groups analyzed were excluded from OS analysis. Groups were compared by log-rank test. P < 0.05 was considered significant, but corrections for multiple testing were performed to reduce statistical errors. Corrections for multiple testing were done using Prism version 7.0c (GraphPad Software, Inc) with a FDR approach for each hypothesis using the two-stage step up method of Benjamini and colleagues (28). Given the exploratory nature of the study, a FDR of up to 15% was tolerated.

Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using R. We applied a bootstrap approach (M = 1000) for variable selection (29). This method uses a nested selection procedure over all variable subsets and model comparison via Akaike information criterion to determine the most relevant variables, that is, only the most frequent variables (≥70%) from all bootstrap replications. The following known prognostic markers were included in the multivariable analysis: T status (T1–3, T4, and CUP), N status (N0 and N+), stage (I, II, III, and IV), HPV status (mol/ser), smoking status (yes and no), primary treatment modality (surgical and nonsurgical), and the primary site (oropharynx, CUP, and non-oropharynx). In addition, all experimental markers that were significantly associated with survival in the whole cohort or stratified by HPV status were integrated into the model.

Results

Patient characteristics of the cohort of 362 patients with HNSCC are presented in Table 2. The majority of patients had an oropharyngeal tumor, explaining the high rate of HPV-positive patients (42.3%). A more detailed description of the patients with non-oropharyngeal tumor is presented in Supplementary Table S1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Patient characteristics by primary site (oropharynx, CUP, and non-oropharynx)

Among the 362 patients, 257 (71%) were seropositive for any of the 29 autoantigens tested. Within the cohort, 360 patients were evaluable for OS and 119 deaths occurred during the follow-up interval. Cause of death was available in 106 of 119 deaths (89%). Among those 106 deaths, 70 (66%) were cancer related.

To identify a prognostic impact associated with the presence of antibody response to certain antigens, OS was analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method for each of the autoantigens. Patient groups containing <5 patients in one of the groups to be compared were excluded from the analysis. As shown in Supplementary Fig. S1, ≥2 antibody responses, antibody response to IMP-1, MAGE-A1, -A3, -A4, -A9, and p53 Rhodopsin E2 and SSX-2 were associated with significantly shorter OS after correction for multiple testing with a FDR of 15%.

The prognostic impact of HPV status is well-known and can be considered the most important prognostic factor for HNSCC (4, 5, 13). In this cohort, the molecular HPV status, as well as the serologic HPV status (HPV-16 E6 antibodies, antibodies to high risk HPV types), and the combined surrogate marker HPV (mol/ser) resulted in consistent survival differences compared with the respective HPV-negative group (Supplementary Fig. S2). Antibody response patterns and prevalences differed between HPV-positive and HPV-negative patients (not shown). Thus, OS analyses were then performed stratified by HPV status (HPV mol/ser). Interestingly, ≥2 antibody responses to autoantigens, antibody responses to c-myc, MAGE-A1, -A4, and Rhodopsin E2 were significantly associated with shorter OS in HPV-negative patients, but not in HPV-positive patients (Supplementary Fig. S3). On the other hand, antibody response to IMP-1 were significantly associated with shorter OS in HPV-positive patients (P > 0.001), but not in HPV-negative patients (P = 0.150; Fig. 1). Moreover, HPV-positive patients with antibody response to IMP-1 did not have a significantly different prognosis compared with HPV-negative patients (P = 0.5). The results were corrected for multiple testing with a FDR of 15%. Results showed the lowest q value for c-myc in HPV-negative patients (q < 0.001) and for IMP-1 in HPV-positive patients (q < 0.002).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Kaplan Meier plots are shown for human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive and HPV-negative patients with or without antibody responses (AR) to IMP-1. HPV+/AR IMP-1 patients (mean OS 41.2 months) had a much shorter overall survival than HPV+/no AR IMP-1 patients (mean OS 109.3 months, P < 0.001). In fact, HPV+/AR IMP-1 patients (mean OS 41.2 months) had a similar prognosis to HPV−/no AR IMP-1 patients (mean OS 27.0 months, P = 0.530) or HPV−/AR IMP-1 patients (79.7 months, P = 0.515).

Antibody response to any antigen with prognostic impact in HPV-negative patients, namely c-myc, MAGE-A1, MAGE-A4, or Rhodopsin E2, were subsequently summarized under a new variable ARhigh risk (n = 83). Presence of ARhigh risk was associated with significantly shorter survival in HPV-negative patients compared with patients lacking ARhigh risk or HPV-positive patients (P < 0.001; Fig. 2). In HPV-positive patients, no statistical survival difference of patients with ARhigh risk compared with those without ARhigh risk (P = 0.850) was found. The results for DSS were not substantially different (not shown).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

OS of patients with antibody responses to ARhigh risk. Antibody responses (AR) to c-myc, MAGE-A1, -A4, or Rhodopsin E2 were summarized under the variable ARhigh risk. Kaplan–Meier plots are shown for HPV-positive and HPV-negative patients with or without antibody responses (ARhigh risk). HPV−/ARhigh risk patients (mean OS 36.5 months) had a significantly shorter OS than HPV−/no ARhigh risk patients (mean OS 87.3 months; P < 0.001), HPV+/no ARhigh risk patients (mean OS 105.5 months; P < 0.001), or HPV+/ARhigh risk patients (mean OS 70.3 months; P < 0.001).

To address bias from other known prognostic markers, a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was used. In addition to the known prognostic markers described in the Materials and Methods section, all antibody responses with a potential prognostic impact based on the OS analysis in the different patient groups (all, HPV positive, and HPV negative) were tested, namely MAGE-A3 antibody response (AR− and AR+), MAGE-A9 antibody response (AR− and AR+), p53 antibody response (AR− and AR+), SSX2 antibody response (AR− and AR+), ARhigh risk, IMP1 antibody response (AR− and AR+), and the number of antibody response (0–1 and ≧2). In the final model, advanced T category, ARhigh risk, and antibody response to IMP-1 were associated with a significantly increased HR, whereas HPV-positive status was associated with a significantly reduced HR (Cox proportional hazard model; Wald: P = 6e-11). HR values for the four variables in the final model with the respective 95% CIs, P values, and the number of positive bootstraps are listed in Table 3.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Final multivariable Cox proportional hazard model based on 1000 bootstraps

Discussion

We were able to show a significant prognostic impact for shorter OS associated with several antibody response to cancer antigens, both agnostic of and stratified by HPV status. The multivariable Cox proportional hazard models confirmed ARhigh risk and IMP-1 among T category and HPV status (HPVmol/ser) as independent markers of a poor prognosis. Instead of arbitrarily dividing the cohort from the five centers into just one test and one validation cohort, we selected a bootstrap approach (M = 1000) for variable selection (29). The benefit of this method is a nested selection procedure over all variable subsets. All models were compared via Akaike information criterion to determine the most relevant variables. Only the most frequent variables (>=70%) from all bootstrap replications were selected for the final model. ARhigh risk and IMP-1 were stably presented variables in the 1000 models tested.

Thus, we have identified a serologic marker, each to detect patients at higher risk of death, for HPV-negative patients (ARhigh risk) and for HPV-positive patients (IMP-1).

IMP-1 (insulin-like growth factor 2 mRNA-binding protein 1; IGF2BP1) is a mRNA binding protein that functions as a transcription factor and also belongs to the cancer-testis antigen family (30). By binding to mRNA it forms a protein–mRNA complex, which stabilizes the target RNA and enhances translation of protein, for example, of c-myc (31) or KRAS (32). It is considered to promote cell proliferation and tumorigenesis (31, 33, 34) and has been associated with a poor prognosis in neuroblastoma (35). Humoral immune responses to IMP-1 have previously been described in ovarian cancer (30).

Within the group of HPV-positive patients, a biomarker to identify those HPV-positive patients who have a prognosis comparable with HPV-negative patients is lacking. Smoking status has been reported as a prognostic marker for HPV-positive patients (4), but was not associated with a poor prognosis in our multivariable model. This may be due to different smoking habits in Germany. German HPV-positive patients tend to have a smoking history above 10-pack years in the median (36). In view of efforts to deescalate treatment for HPV-positive patients, it is highly important to detect high-risk patients.

Recently, two treatment deescalation trials for HPV-positive patients were published, both only using p16 for determination of HPV status (37, 38). In contrast to the expected outcome, both trials failed to prove that cetuximab is less toxic than high-dose cisplatin. Instead exchanging cisplatin for cetuximab had a detrimental impact on OS.

Alarmingly, in the clinical routine in the United States, some physicians are not recommending adjuvant treatment to surgically treated HPV-positive patients (39). To protect HPV-positive patients with a bad outcome from harm, the subgroup of patients with a poor prognosis needs to be identified, if a deescalation of treatment for HPV-positive patients should be established in the future.

Several other studies have associated antibody response to certain cancer antigens with detrimental or beneficial prognosis (22, 24, 40). In most studies and for most antigens, a negative prognostic impact, consistent with our results, was found. These findings indicate that humoral immunity to cancer antigens may be a poor surrogate marker for active cancer immunity, but rather an indirect measure of antigen expression as shown previously (40–43). At the same time, these patients may be candidates for antigen-specific immunotherapy, which may improve the detrimental outcome. Cancer antigen serology may therefore identify patients who are at high risk of death, but who may benefit from immunotherapy (44).

There are some limitations to our study: patients were not treated within a prospective clinical trial with a defined treatment regimen. However, patients were treated at five large European cancer centers in line with international treatment guidelines. Because of the number of hypotheses tested, corrections for multiple testing were needed and performed. Some of the prognostic groups compared were rather small due to the diversity of antibody response patterns. However, the results for ARhigh risk and IMP-1 remained stable up to a FDR of 1%. The multivariable Cox proportional hazard model with 1000 bootstraps also confirmed these two factors among T category and HPV status to be significantly correlated with OS. The prognostic impact of serologic antibodies detected at baseline is somewhat controversial (3, 22, 24, 45, 46). Antibody levels and biological activity may change over the course of the disease. As such, cancer-antigen antibodies may represent an interesting biomarker during post-treatment surveillance. However, a prospective validation of these new markers, preferably in a randomized trial with samples taken over the course of treatment and follow-up would be desirable.

In conclusion, our results show that ARhigh risk may be used to identify patients with a dismal prognosis among HPV-negative patients and antibody response to IMP-1 among HPV-positive patients. Antibody response to IMP-1 is a novel marker to detect HPV-positive patients who have a comparable prognosis to HPV-negative patients. In view of current strategies to deescalate treatment for HPV-positive patients (39) such patients are at risk and need to be identified.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

S. Laban reports receiving speakers bureau honoraria from MSD, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Serono, and is a consultant/advisory board member for MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. P.J. Schuler reports receiving speakers bureau honoraria from Advisory Boards. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: S. Laban, S.B. Eichmüller, T.K. Hoffmann, M. Pawlita

Development of methodology: S.B. Eichmüller, A. Dietz, M. Pawlita, T. Waterboer, J. Butt

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): S. Laban, D.S. Gangkofner, D. Holzinger, L. Schroeder, G. Wichmann, A. Dietz, M.A. Broglie, C.C. Herold-Mende, G. Dyckhoff, P. Boscolo-Rizzo, R. Marienfeld, C. Brunner, P.J. Schuler, M.C. Wigand, J. Doescher, T.K. Hoffmann, M. Pawlita, T. Waterboer, J. Butt

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): S. Laban, D.S. Gangkofner, D. Holzinger, L. Schroeder, D. Jäger, G. Wichmann, A. Dietz, J. Ezić, J.M. Kraus, G. Völkel, H.A. Kestler, M. Pawlita, T. Waterboer, J. Butt

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: S. Laban, D.S. Gangkofner, D. Holzinger, L. Schroeder, S.B. Eichmüller, I. Zörnig, D. Jäger, G. Wichmann, A. Dietz, M.A. Broglie, C.C. Herold-Mende, G. Dyckhoff, P. Boscolo-Rizzo, J. Ezić, C. Brunner, P.J. Schuler, M.-N. Theodoraki, J. Doescher, T.K. Hoffmann, M. Pawlita, T. Waterboer, J. Butt

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): S. Laban, D.S. Gangkofner, D. Holzinger, L. Schroeder, I. Zörnig, G. Wichmann, M.A. Broglie, C.C. Herold-Mende, J. Ezić, P. Möller, C. Brunner, M.-N. Theodoraki, T.K. Hoffmann

Study supervision: S. Laban, T.K. Hoffmann, M. Pawlita

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all patients who provided biological samples for this study. This work was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Research Training Group GRK-2254 (HEIST) to S. Laban, J. Ezić, T.K. Hoffmann, R. Marienfeld, P. Möller, J.M. Kraus, and H.A. Kestler, and University of Ulm to S. Laban (clinician scientist program) and D.S. Gangkofner (experimental medicine program).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Footnotes

  • Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Clinical Cancer Research Online (http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/).

  • Prior presentation: Presented at the joint meeting of the CRI/CIMT/EATI/AACR 2017, Deutscher Krebskongress 2018 and the Annual Meeting of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hals-Nasen-Ohrenheilkunde 2018.

  • Clin Cancer Res 2019;25:7405–12

  • Received May 9, 2019.
  • Revision received June 27, 2019.
  • Accepted August 20, 2019.
  • Published first August 23, 2019.
  • ©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Bray F,
    2. Ferlay J,
    3. Soerjomataram I,
    4. Siegel RL,
    5. Torre LA,
    6. Jemal A
    . Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394–424.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Gillison ML,
    2. Koch WM,
    3. Capone RB,
    4. Spafford M,
    5. Westra WH,
    6. Wu L,
    7. et al.
    Evidence for a causal association between human papillomavirus and a subset of head and neck cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:709–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Schroeder L,
    2. Wichmann G,
    3. Willner M,
    4. Michel A,
    5. Wiesenfarth M,
    6. Flechtenmacher C,
    7. et al.
    Antibodies against human papillomaviruses as diagnostic and prognostic biomarker in patients with neck squamous cell carcinoma from unknown primary tumor. Int J Cancer 2018;142:1361–8.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Ang KK,
    2. Harris J,
    3. Wheeler R,
    4. Weber R,
    5. Rosenthal DI,
    6. Nguyen-Tan PF,
    7. et al.
    Human papillomavirus and survival of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;363:24–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Licitra L,
    2. Perrone F,
    3. Bossi P,
    4. Suardi S,
    5. Mariani L,
    6. Artusi R,
    7. et al.
    High-risk human papillomavirus affects prognosis in patients with surgically treated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:5630–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. van der Bruggen P,
    2. Traversari C,
    3. Chomez P,
    4. Lurquin C,
    5. De Plaen E,
    6. Van den Eynde B,
    7. et al.
    A gene encoding an antigen recognized by cytolytic T lymphocytes on a human melanoma. Science 1991;254:1643–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. von Boehmer L,
    2. Mattle M,
    3. Bode P,
    4. Landshammer A,
    5. Schafer C,
    6. Nuber N,
    7. et al.
    NY-ESO-1-specific immunological pressure and escape in a patient with metastatic melanoma. Cancer Immun 2013;13:12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Bazhin AV,
    2. Schadendorf D,
    3. Willner N,
    4. De Smet C,
    5. Heinzelmann A,
    6. Tikhomirova NK,
    7. et al.
    Photoreceptor proteins as cancer-retina antigens. Int J Cancer 2007;120:1268–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Schuler PJ,
    2. Harasymczuk M,
    3. Visus C,
    4. Deleo A,
    5. Trivedi S,
    6. Lei Y,
    7. et al.
    Phase I dendritic cell p53 peptide vaccine for head and neck cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2014;20:2433–44.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Welters MJP,
    2. Ma W,
    3. Santegoets S,
    4. Goedemans R,
    5. Ehsan I,
    6. Jordanova ES,
    7. et al.
    Intratumoral HPV16-specific T cells constitute a type I-oriented tumor microenvironment to improve survival in HPV16-driven oropharyngeal cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2018;24:634–47.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Holzinger D,
    2. Wichmann G,
    3. Baboci L,
    4. Michel A,
    5. Hofler D,
    6. Wiesenfarth M,
    7. et al.
    Sensitivity and specificity of antibodies against HPV16 E6 and other early proteins for the detection of HPV16-driven oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Cancer 2017;140:2748–57.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Broglie MA,
    2. Jochum W,
    3. Michel A,
    4. Waterboer T,
    5. Foerbs D,
    6. Schoenegg R,
    7. et al.
    Evaluation of type-specific antibodies to high risk-human papillomavirus (HPV) proteins in patients with oropharyngeal cancer. Oral Oncol 2017;70:43–50.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Nelson HH,
    2. Pawlita M,
    3. Michaud DS,
    4. McClean M,
    5. Langevin SM,
    6. Eliot MN,
    7. et al.
    Immune response to HPV16 E6 and E7 proteins and patient outcomes in head and neck cancer. JAMA Oncol 2017;3:178–85.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Lang Kuhs KA,
    2. Kreimer AR,
    3. Trivedi S,
    4. Holzinger D,
    5. Pawlita M,
    6. Pfeiffer RM,
    7. et al.
    Human papillomavirus 16 E6 antibodies are sensitive for human papillomavirus-driven oropharyngeal cancer and are associated with recurrence. Cancer 2017;123:4382–90.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Laban S,
    2. Atanackovic D,
    3. Luetkens T,
    4. Knecht R,
    5. Busch CJ,
    6. Freytag M,
    7. et al.
    Simultaneous cytoplasmic and nuclear protein expression of melanoma antigen-A family and NY-ESO-1 cancer-testis antigens represents an independent marker for poor survival in head and neck cancer. Int J Cancer 2014;135:1142–52.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Laban S,
    2. Giebel G,
    3. Klumper N,
    4. Schrock A,
    5. Doescher J,
    6. Spagnoli G,
    7. et al.
    MAGE expression in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma primary tumors, lymph node metastases and respective recurrences-implications for immunotherapy. Oncotarget 2017;8:14719–35.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    1. Sauerbrei W,
    2. Taube SE,
    3. McShane LM,
    4. Cavenagh MM,
    5. Altman DG
    . Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): an abridged explanation and elaboration. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018;110:803–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Jacobs MV,
    2. de Roda Husman AM,
    3. van den Brule AJ,
    4. Snijders PJ,
    5. Meijer CJ,
    6. Walboomers JM
    . Group-specific differentiation between high- and low-risk human papillomavirus genotypes by general primer-mediated PCR and two cocktails of oligonucleotide probes. J Clin Microbiol 1995;33:901–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Halec G,
    2. Schmitt M,
    3. Dondog B,
    4. Sharkhuu E,
    5. Wentzensen N,
    6. Gheit T,
    7. et al.
    Biological activity of probable/possible high-risk human papillomavirus types in cervical cancer. Int J Cancer 2013;132:63–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Halec G,
    2. Holzinger D,
    3. Schmitt M,
    4. Flechtenmacher C,
    5. Dyckhoff G,
    6. Lloveras B,
    7. et al.
    Biological evidence for a causal role of HPV16 in a small fraction of laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Br J Cancer 2013;109:172–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Chen H,
    2. Werner S,
    3. Butt J,
    4. Zornig I,
    5. Knebel P,
    6. Michel A,
    7. et al.
    Prospective evaluation of 64 serum autoantibodies as biomarkers for early detection of colorectal cancer in a true screening setting. Oncotarget 2016;7:16420–32.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    1. Michels J,
    2. Becker N,
    3. Suciu S,
    4. Kaiser I,
    5. Benner A,
    6. Kosaloglu-Yalcin Z,
    7. et al.
    Multiplex bead-based measurement of humoral immune responses against tumor-associated antigens in stage II melanoma patients of the EORTC18961 trial. Oncoimmunology 2018;7:e1428157.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    1. Werner S,
    2. Chen H,
    3. Butt J,
    4. Michel A,
    5. Knebel P,
    6. Holleczek B,
    7. et al.
    Evaluation of the diagnostic value of 64 simultaneously measured autoantibodies for early detection of gastric cancer. Sci Rep 2016;6:25467.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    1. Zornig I,
    2. Halama N,
    3. Lorenzo Bermejo J,
    4. Ziegelmeier C,
    5. Dickes E,
    6. Migdoll A,
    7. et al.
    Prognostic significance of spontaneous antibody responses against tumor-associated antigens in malignant melanoma patients. Int J Cancer 2015;136:138–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Waterboer T,
    2. Sehr P,
    3. Michael KM,
    4. Franceschi S,
    5. Nieland JD,
    6. Joos TO,
    7. et al.
    Multiplex human papillomavirus serology based on in situ-purified glutathione s-transferase fusion proteins. Clin Chem 2005;51:1845–53.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Migchelsen SJ,
    2. Martin DL,
    3. Southisombath K,
    4. Turyaguma P,
    5. Heggen A,
    6. Rubangakene PP,
    7. et al.
    Defining seropositivity thresholds for use in trachoma elimination studies. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2017;11:e0005230.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.↵
    1. Lang TA,
    2. Altman DG
    . Basic statistical reporting for articles published in clinical medical journals: the "Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature" or the SAMPL Guidelines. Int J Nurs Stud 2015;52:5–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Benjamini Y,
    2. Krieger AM,
    3. Yekutieli D
    . Adaptive linear step-up procedures that control the false discovery rate. Biometrika 2006;93:491–507.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 29.↵
    1. Sauerbrei W,
    2. Schumacher M
    . A bootstrap resampling procedure for model building: application to the Cox regression model. Stat Med 1992;11:2093–109.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Wang C,
    2. Gu Y,
    3. Zhang E,
    4. Zhang K,
    5. Qin N,
    6. Dai J,
    7. et al.
    A cancer-testis non-coding RNA LIN28B-AS1 activates driver gene LIN28B by interacting with IGF2BP1 in lung adenocarcinoma. Oncogene 2019;38:1611–24.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    1. Mahapatra L,
    2. Andruska N,
    3. Mao C,
    4. Le J,
    5. Shapiro DJ
    . A novel IMP1 inhibitor, BTYNB, targets c-myc and inhibits melanoma and ovarian cancer cell proliferation. Transl Oncol 2017;10:818–27.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    1. Mackedenski S,
    2. Wang C,
    3. Li WM,
    4. Lee CH
    . Characterizing the interaction between insulin-like growth factor 2 mRNA-binding protein 1 (IMP1) and KRAS expression. Biochem J 2018;475:2749–67.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Lan Q,
    2. Liu PY,
    3. Haase J,
    4. Bell JL,
    5. Huttelmaier S,
    6. Liu T
    . The critical role of RNA m(6)A methylation in cancer. Cancer Res 2019;79:1285–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Muller S,
    2. Glass M,
    3. Singh AK,
    4. Haase J,
    5. Bley N,
    6. Fuchs T,
    7. et al.
    IGF2BP1 promotes SRF-dependent transcription in cancer in a m6A- and miRNA-dependent manner. Nucleic Acids Res 2019;47:375–90.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    1. Bell JL,
    2. Turlapati R,
    3. Liu T,
    4. Schulte JH,
    5. Huttelmaier S
    . IGF2BP1 harbors prognostic significance by gene gain and diverse expression in neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:1285–93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Hoffmann M,
    2. Quabius ES,
    3. Tribius S,
    4. Gebhardt S,
    5. Gorogh T,
    6. Hedderich J,
    7. et al.
    Influence of HPV-status on survival of patients with tonsillar carcinomas (TSCC) treated by CO2-laser surgery plus risk adapted therapy - a 10 year retrospective single centre study. Cancer Lett 2018;413:59–68.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    1. Gillison ML,
    2. Trotti AM,
    3. Harris J,
    4. Eisbruch A,
    5. Harari PM,
    6. Adelstein DJ,
    7. et al.
    Radiotherapy plus cetuximab or cisplatin in human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (NRG Oncology RTOG 1016): a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2019;393:40–50.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    1. Mehanna H,
    2. Robinson M,
    3. Hartley A,
    4. Kong A,
    5. Foran B,
    6. Fulton-Lieuw T,
    7. et al.
    Radiotherapy plus cisplatin or cetuximab in low-risk human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (De-ESCALaTE HPV): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 2019;393:51–60.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    1. Cramer JD,
    2. Ferris RL,
    3. Duvvuri U
    . Treatment deintensification to surgery only for stage I human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:6003.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    1. Daudi S,
    2. Eng KH,
    3. Mhawech-Fauceglia P,
    4. Morrison C,
    5. Miliotto A,
    6. Beck A,
    7. et al.
    Expression and immune responses to MAGE antigens predict survival in epithelial ovarian cancer. PLoS One 2014;9:e104099.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    1. Scanlan MJ,
    2. Welt S,
    3. Gordon CM,
    4. Chen YT,
    5. Gure AO,
    6. Stockert E,
    7. et al.
    Cancer-related serological recognition of human colon cancer: identification of potential diagnostic and immunotherapeutic targets. Cancer Res 2002;62:4041–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.↵
    1. Stockert E,
    2. Jager E,
    3. Chen YT,
    4. Scanlan MJ,
    5. Gout I,
    6. Karbach J,
    7. et al.
    A survey of the humoral immune response of cancer patients to a panel of human tumor antigens. J Exp Med 1998;187:1349–54.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Ademuyiwa FO,
    2. Bshara W,
    3. Attwood K,
    4. Morrison C,
    5. Edge SB,
    6. Karpf AR,
    7. et al.
    NY-ESO-1 cancer testis antigen demonstrates high immunogenicity in triple negative breast cancer. PLoS One 2012;7:e38783.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Haag GM,
    2. Zoernig I,
    3. Hassel JC,
    4. Halama N,
    5. Dick J,
    6. Lang N,
    7. et al.
    Phase II trial of ipilimumab in melanoma patients with preexisting humoural immune response to NY-ESO-1. Eur J Cancer 2018;90:122–9.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    1. Reuschenbach M,
    2. von Knebel Doeberitz M,
    3. Wentzensen N
    . A systematic review of humoral immune responses against tumor antigens. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2009;58:1535–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Kobold S,
    2. Luetkens T,
    3. Cao Y,
    4. Bokemeyer C,
    5. Atanackovic D
    . Prognostic and diagnostic value of spontaneous tumor-related antibodies. Clin Develop Immunol 2010;2010:721531.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Clinical Cancer Research: 25 (24)
December 2019
Volume 25, Issue 24
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Editorial Board (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Clinical Cancer Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Antibody Responses to Cancer Antigens Identify Patients with a Poor Prognosis among HPV-Positive and HPV-Negative Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Clinical Cancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Clinical Cancer Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Antibody Responses to Cancer Antigens Identify Patients with a Poor Prognosis among HPV-Positive and HPV-Negative Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients
Simon Laban, Dominik S. Gangkofner, Dana Holzinger, Lea Schroeder, Stefan B. Eichmüller, Inka Zörnig, Dirk Jäger, Gunnar Wichmann, Andreas Dietz, Martina A. Broglie, Christel C. Herold-Mende, Gerhard Dyckhoff, Paolo Boscolo-Rizzo, Jasmin Ezić, Ralf Marienfeld, Peter Möller, Johann M. Kraus, Gunnar Völkel, Hans A. Kestler, Cornelia Brunner, Patrick J. Schuler, Marlene C. Wigand, Marie-Nicole Theodoraki, Johannes Doescher, Thomas K. Hoffmann, Michael Pawlita, Tim Waterboer and Julia Butt
Clin Cancer Res December 15 2019 (25) (24) 7405-7412; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-1490

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Antibody Responses to Cancer Antigens Identify Patients with a Poor Prognosis among HPV-Positive and HPV-Negative Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients
Simon Laban, Dominik S. Gangkofner, Dana Holzinger, Lea Schroeder, Stefan B. Eichmüller, Inka Zörnig, Dirk Jäger, Gunnar Wichmann, Andreas Dietz, Martina A. Broglie, Christel C. Herold-Mende, Gerhard Dyckhoff, Paolo Boscolo-Rizzo, Jasmin Ezić, Ralf Marienfeld, Peter Möller, Johann M. Kraus, Gunnar Völkel, Hans A. Kestler, Cornelia Brunner, Patrick J. Schuler, Marlene C. Wigand, Marie-Nicole Theodoraki, Johannes Doescher, Thomas K. Hoffmann, Michael Pawlita, Tim Waterboer and Julia Butt
Clin Cancer Res December 15 2019 (25) (24) 7405-7412; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-1490
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Authors' Contributions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Outcomes of Patients with KRAS-G12C–Mutant Lung Cancer
  • A Novel Mouse Model of Radiation-Induced Cardiotoxicity
  • [68Ga]Ga-DOTA-TOC PET and Postsurgical Assessment
Show more Precision Medicine and Imaging
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  YouTube  RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • CCR Focus Archive
  • Meeting Abstracts

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Clinical Cancer Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Clinical Cancer Research
eISSN: 1557-3265
ISSN: 1078-0432

Advertisement