This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Sailasree, R. Articles by Kannan, S. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sailasree, R. Articles by Kannan, S. Related Collections Risk Assessment Risk Assessment: Biomarkers

Differential Roles of p16^INK4A and p14^ARF Genes in Prognosis of Oral Carcinoma

¹ Laboratory of Cell Cycle Regulation and Molecular Oncology, Division of Cancer Research, ² Division of Dental Surgery, and ³ Division of Surgical Oncology, Regional Cancer Center, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India

Requests for reprints: S. Kannan, Laboratory of Cell Cycle Regulation and Molecular Oncology, Division of Cancer Research, Regional Cancer Center, Thiruvananthapuram 695011, India. Phone: 91-471-2522338; Fax: 91-471-2447454. E-mail: kannan{at}rcctvm.org or kannan_rcc{at}yahoo.com

Background: Oral cancer patients are found to have poor clinical outcome and high disease recurrence rate, in spite of an aggressive treatment regimen. The inactivation of INK4A/ARF loci is reported to be second to p53 inactivation in human cancers. The purpose of this study was to assess the prognostic significance of the molecular aberrations in the INK4A locus for effective identification of aggressive oral carcinoma cases needing alternate therapy.

Materials and Methods: The study composed of 116 patients freshly diagnosed with oral carcinoma. The genetic and epigenetic status of the p16^INK4A and p14^ARF genes was evaluated. The relation between these genic alterations and different treatment end points, such as residual disease (initial response), disease recurrence, and overall survival, along with the standard clinical markers, were analyzed.

Results: 62% of the study cases had p16^INK4A gene abnormalities, with deletion accounting for 33% and methylation for 29%. Alterations in p14^ARF gene either by deletion (12%) and/or methylation (18%) were observed in 30% of the cases. p16^INK4A deletion was associated with aggressive tumors, as evidenced by the nodal involvement of the disease. Low or absence of p16^INK4A protein adversely affected the initial treatment response. Promoter methylation of p16^INK4A was associated with increased disease recurrence and acts as an independent predictor for worse prognosis. Surprisingly, p14^ARF methylation associated with lower recurrence rate in oral cancer patients with a good clinical outcome. Overall survival of these patients was associated with tumor size, nodal disease, and p16^INK4A protein expression pattern. Our results indicate that p16^INK4A and p14^ARF alterations constitute a major molecular abnormality in oral cancer cases.

Conclusion: The molecular profile of INK4A/ARF locus, both at DNA and protein level, could be used as a prognostic biomarker for assessing the aggressiveness of disease in oral carcinoma patients. The study further shows the opposing clinical effect of these two genes, transcribed from the same locus, in oral cancer patients. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(2):414–20)