MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

p16 expression as a human papillomavirus (HPV)-independent prognostic biomarker in non-oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (non-OPSCC).

2013· article· en· W2199389393 on OpenAlexaff
Christine H. Chung, Qiang Zhang, Christina S. Kong, Jonathan Harris, K. Kian Ang, Paul M. Harari, Dian Wang, Kevin P. Redmond, George Shenouda, Andy Trotti, David Raben, Maura L. Gillison, Richard C. Jordan, Quynh‐Thu Le

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOncologyInternal medicineImmunohistochemistryHazard ratioHuman papillomavirusProportional hazards modelStage (stratigraphy)BiomarkerHPV infectionCancerCervical cancerConfidence intervalBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6007 Background: p16 is an important tumor suppressor and cell cycle regulator that is commonly lost in HPV-negative (-) and upregulated in HPV-positive (+) OPSCC. While the role of p16 expression in OPSCC as a surrogate marker of HPV infection and its association with prognosis are well established, its significance has not been studied in non-OPSCC including oral cavity, hypopharynx and larynx, where HPV infection is rare. We hypothesize that p16 expression is a prognostic biomarker of favorable outcome (progression-free and overall survival) in non-OPSCC. Methods: p16 expression in non-OPSCC from RTOG 0129, 0234 and 0522 was determined by immunohistochemistry (p16 mouse monoclonal antibody, prediluted, MTM-CINtech, 9518) and considered positive if >70% of the tumor cells demonstrated diffuse staining. The high risk HPV status in non-OPSCC from RTOG 0129 and 0522 was determined by in situ hybridization using a cocktail probe including HPV16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58 and 66. Hazard ratios from Cox models were expressed as positive/negative, stratified by trial, and adjusted for age, gender, T, and N stage. Results: p16 expression was positive in 14.1% (12/85), 24.2% (23/95) and 19.0% (27/142) of non-OPSCC from RTOG 0129, RTOG 0234, and RTOG 0522, respectively. HPV ISH was positive in 6.5% (6/93) and 6.9% (7/101) of non-OPSCC from RTOG 0129 and RTOG 0522, respectively. There was moderate agreement between p16 and HPV status (kappa=0.53). The hazard ratios for p16 expression are 0.63 (p=0.03) and 0.56 (p=0.01) for PFS and OS, respectively. In 0522, there was no interaction between p16 status and two treatment arms (RT+cisplatin+/-cetuximab). In comparison of OPSCC and non-OPSCC, patients with p16(+) OPSCC have better PFS and OS than patients with p16(+) non-OPSCC, but patients with p16(-) OPSCC and non-OPSCC have similar outcomes. Conclusions: Similar to results in patients with OPSCC, patients with p16(+) non-OPSCC have better outcomes than patients with p16(-); however, the differential appears smaller than has been observed in HPV(+) OPSCC. Further studies are warranted to delineate the role of p16 expression as a prognostic biomarker in non-OPSCC and OPSCC. Clinical trial information: NCT00265941, NCT00047008, NCT00084318.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.352 · 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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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