Sensitivity and Specificity of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) 16 Early Antigen Serology for HPV-Driven Oropharyngeal Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Simple Summary Serum antibodies against human papillomavirus 16 (HPV16) proteins are associated with HPV-driven oropharyngeal cancer (HPV-OPC). The HPV status of OPC cases is clinically relevant because patients with HPV-OPC show improved survival and treatment response compared to tobacco- or alcohol-induced OPC. In clinical settings, molecular HPV tumor status is usually determined by tissue-based methods detecting molecular markers, such as viral nucleic acids or p16 overexpression. Antibodies against HPV16 in peripheral blood were shown to be very accurate in determining the molecular HPV tumor status in multiple studies. In this work, we reviewed and summarized the available literature on the performance of HPV16 serology for E2, E6 and E7 antibodies to determine molecular HPV tumor status in OPC cases in comparison with tissue-based reference methods. We calculated summary estimates across different studies for sensitivity and specificity, and we investigated factors influencing test performance. Abstract Antibodies against HPV16 early proteins have been shown to be promising biomarkers for the identification of HPV-driven oropharyngeal cancer (HPV-OPC) among OPC cases in multiple studies. A systematic literature search was performed to identify original research articles comparing HPV early antigen serology with established reference methods to determine molecular HPV tumor status. Random-effects models were used to calculate summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity of HPV16 E2, E6 and E7 serology for HPV-OPC. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity across studies and describe variables associated with test performance. We identified n = 23 studies meeting all eligibility criteria and included these in the meta-analysis. E6 serology showed the best performance with pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates of 83.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 72.5–90.2%) and 94.6% (95% CI 89.0–97.4%), respectively, while E2 and E7 serological assays were highly specific (E2: 92.5% (95% CI 79.1–97.6%); E7: 88.5% (95% CI 77.9–94.4%)) but moderately sensitive (E2: 67.8% (95% CI 58.9–75.6%); E7: 67.0% (95% CI 63.2–70.6%)). Subgroup analyses revealed increased pooled sensitivity for bacterially (89.9% (95% CI 84.5–93.6%)) vs. in vitro expressed E6 antigen (55.3% (95% CI 41.0–68.7%)), while both showed high specificity (95.2% (95% CI 93.0–96.7%) and 91.1% (95% CI 46.6–99.2%), respectively). Pooled specificity estimates for HPV16 E2, E6 and E7 serology were significantly lower in studies utilizing HPV DNA PCR as the only molecular reference method compared to those using a combination of any two reference methods (HPV DNA, RNA, in situ hybridization (ISH), p16 immunohistochemistry (IHC)), or histopathological reference methods (ISH or p16 IHC) as stand-alone marker. In conclusion, HPV16 E6 seropositivity is a highly sensitive and specific biomarker for HPV-OPC. However, its performance differs between serological assays and depends on molecular reference methods.