MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124891284 · doi:10.1200/jco.2012.44.0164

Deintensification Candidate Subgroups in Human Papillomavirus–Related Oropharyngeal Cancer According to Minimal Risk of Distant Metastasis

2013· article· en· W2124891284 on OpenAlexaff
Brian O’Sullivan, Shao Hui Huang, Lillian L. Siu, John Waldron, Helen Zhao, Bayardo Perez‐Ordoñez, Ilan Weinreb, John Kim, Jolie Ringash, Andrew Bayley, Laura A. Dawson, Andrew Hope, John Cho, Jonathan C. Irish, Ralph Gilbert, Patrick Gullane, Angela Bik‐Yu Hui, Fei‐Fei Liu, Eric X. Chen, Wei Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersPrincess Margaret Hospital Foundation
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineHazard ratioHuman papillomavirusMultivariate analysisGastroenterologyOncologyChemoradiotherapyUnivariate analysisProportional hazards modelRadiation therapyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To define human papillomavirus (HPV) -positive oropharyngeal cancers (OPC) suitable for treatment deintensification according to low risk of distant metastasis (DM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: OPC treated with radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) from 2001 to 2009 were included. Outcomes were compared for HPV-positive versus HPV-negative patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified outcome predictors. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) stratified the DM risk. RESULTS: HPV status was ascertained in 505 (56%) of 899 consecutive OPCs. Median follow-up was 3.9 years. HPV-positive patients (n = 382), compared with HPV-negative patients (n = 123), had higher local (94% v 80%, respectively, at 3 years; P < .01) and regional control (95% v 82%, respectively; P < .01) but similar distant control (DC; 90% v 86%, respectively; P = .53). Multivariate analysis identified that HPV negativity (hazard ratio [HR], 2.9; 95% CI, 2.0 to 5.0), N2b-N3 (HR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.8 to 4.9), T4 (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.9), and RT alone (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.5) predicted a lower recurrence-free survival (RFS; all P < .01). Smoking pack-years > 10 reduced overall survival (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.7; P = .03) but did not impact RFS (HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.9; P = .65). RPA segregated HPV-positive patients into low (T1-3N0-2c; DC, 93%) and high DM risk (N3 or T4; DC, 76%) groups and HPV-negative patients into different low (T1-2N0-2c; DC, 93%) and high DM risk (T3-4N3; DC, 72%) groups. The DC rates for HPV-positive, low-risk N0-2a or less than 10 pack-year N2b patients were similar for RT alone and CRT, but the rate was lower in the N2c subset managed by RT alone (73% v 92% for CRT; P = .02). CONCLUSION: HPV-positive T1-3N0-2c patients have a low DM risk, but N2c patients from this group have a reduced DC when treated with RT alone and seem less suited for deintensification strategies that omit chemotherapy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations589
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207