Expression of mPGES1 and p16 in feline and human oral squamous cell carcinoma: A comparative oncology approach

Abstract

AbstractComparative cancer studies help us determine if discoveries in one species apply to another. Feline and human oral squamous cell carcinoma (FOSCC and HOSCC) are invasive tumours in which inflammation and abnormal p16 expression are reported. Immunohistochemistry was used to determine the expression of p16 and microsomal prostaglandin E2 synthase 1 (mPGES1) in 42 HOSCC and 45 FOSCC samples with known expression of cyclooxygenase 2 (COX2) and cluster of differentiation 147 (CD147). High p16 expression was more common in HOSCC tumour cells compared to adjacent stroma and oral epithelium (p < .05), with a similar but statistically nonsignificant pattern in FOSCC. Interestingly, high mPGES1 expression in FOSCC was more common in the adjacent epithelium compared to the other compartments (p < .05). In HOSCC, mPGES1 was more similar between compartments but was numerically more common in the tumour compartment (p > .05). There were nominal (p > 0.05) differences in marker expression between high and low mPGES1 expressing tumours in both species, including high p16 observed more commonly in high mPGES1 tumours, and COX‐2 positive tumours being more common in low mPGES1 tumours. High CD147 HOSCC tumours were more common in the high mPGES1 HOSCC group (p < .05). In the FOSCC cohort, where there was no statistical difference in CD147 expression between high and low mPGES1 tumours, there were numerically higher CD147 cases in the high mPGES1group. Different expression patterns in FOSCC and HOSCC could be related to different risk factors. For example, p16 is a marker of papillomavirus‐driven HOSCC, but a causal relationship between papillomaviruses and FOSCC has yet to be definitively demonstrated. The significance of high P16 expression in the absence of papillomavirus infection deserves further study, and the relative contributions of COX2 and mPGES1 to tumour inflammation and progression should be explored. The findings reveal potential similarities in FOSCC and HOSCC biology, while also demonstrating differences that may relate to risk factors and pathogenesis that are unique to each species.