MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Differential impact of cisplatin dose intensity on human papillomavirus (HPV)-related (+) and HPV-unrelated (−) locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LAHNSCC).

2015· article· en· W2597411510 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Spreafico, Shao Hui Huang, Wei Xu, Roberta Granata, Chen-Shin Liu, John Waldron, Eric X. Chen, Jolie Ringash, Andrew Bayley, Kelvin Chan, Andrew Hope, Albiruni R. Abdul Razak, Bayardo Perez‐Ordoñez, Ilan Weinreb, Paolo Bossi, Ester Orlandi, Lisa Licitra, Brian O’Sullivan, Lillian L. Siu, Joon-Hyung J. Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineOncologyHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaStage (stratigraphy)Head and neck cancerRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6020 Background: Definitive radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin (CDDP) is a standard treatment for patients (pts) with LAHNSCC. We evaluated the impact of CDDP dose intensity (mg/m2) on overall survival (OS) of HPV+ and HPV- LAHNSCC pts. Methods: Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM) and Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori (INT) LAHNSCC cohorts treated from 2000 to 2012 were reviewed. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the 5-year (yr) OS in HPV+ vs HPV− pts. HPV status was determined by p16 staining or in situ hybridization HPV DNA for all oropharyngeal (OPC), unknown primary (UNK), and ≤ 10 pack-year (PY) smoking laryngo-hypopharyngeal cancer (LHC). Untested p16, >10 PY LHC pts were assumed HPV−. Multivariable analysis (MVA) with Cox regression identified OS predictors for HPV+ and HPV− pts. Results: A total of 659 pts (584 PM; 75 INT) were evaluated. Pts characteristics included: median age 58 (range: 27-81); primary site: OPC 73%, LHC 24%, UNK 3%; non-smokers 27%; stage: T4 25%, N2c-N3 60%; HPV+ 404 (61%), HPV− 255 (39%) pts. Median CDDP dose was 200 mg/m2 for both HPV+ and HPV− cohorts. Median follow-up was 4.3 yrs. Five year OS was inferior for HPV− CDDP ≤ 200 vs > 200 mg/m2 (44 vs 62%, p < 0.01), while no difference was detected in HPV+ CDDP ≤ 200 vs > 200 mg/m2 (83 vs 87%, p = 0.30), confirmed by MVA (Table). In N3 or T4 HPV+ pts, a trend on OS in CDDP >200 mg/m2(HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.30-1.31) was observed. Conclusions: In this large multicenter cohort study, CDDP dose intensity ≤ 200 mg/m2had a detrimental impact on OS in HPV− LAHNSCC pts. The impact of CDDP dose intensity on HPV+ pts was not significant. These results warrant prospective validation. MVA for OS in HPV+ and HPV– pts. HR (95% CI) & p value CDDP (mg/m2) > 200 vs ≤ 200 Age 1 yr increment Smoking 10 PY increment T HPV+: T4 vs T0-3 HPV–: T3-4 vs T1-2 N HPV+: N2c-3 vs N0-2b HPV–: N2b-3 vs N0-2a Disease Site Non-OPC vs OPC HPV+ 0.8 (0.4-1.4) p = 0.46 0.98 (0.95-1.01) p = 0.25 1.2 (1.02-1.3) p = 0.03 2.5 (1.3-4.5) p < 0.01 2.4 (1.3-4.4) p < 0.01 NA HPV– 0.5 (0.3-0.8) p < 0.01 1.00 (0.98-1.02) p = 0.93 1.1 (0.98-1.2) p = 0.12 1.4 (0.9-2.1) p = 0.13 2.4 (1.5-3.9) p < 0.01 1.2 (0.8-1.8) p = 0.38

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHead and Neck Cancer Studies→French-language works237,207→