MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Asian and non-Asian disparities in outcomes of head and neck cancer (HNC).

2014· article· en· W2598900011 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jason D. Kim, Tian Yang Darren Liu, Ali Moghaddamjou, Winson Y. Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHead and neck cancerInternal medicineCancerConfoundingCohortProportional hazards modelDemographyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6567 Background: Racial differences in cancer outcomes are frequently observed for specific tumor types, including nasopharyngeal cancers, but prior research has mainly focused on disparities between Black and White races. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of Asian and non-Asian races on overall survival (OS) in a large population-based cohort of HNC. Methods: All patients diagnosed with non-nasopharyngeal HNC from 2001 to 2010 and referred to any 1 of 5 regional comprehensive cancer centers in British Columbia, Canada were reviewed. Using specialized software (Onomap, Inc.) that recognized common and distinctive surnames based on race, patients were classified as Asians vs. non-Asians. Using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression, we examined the relationship between race and OS while controlling for confounders that consisted of additional socio-demographics and other tumor and treatment-related characteristics. Results: We identified a total of 3,036 patients: median age was 64 years (range 20-100), 74% were men, 32% were ECOG 0/1, and 7% and 93% were Asian and non-Asian, respectively. Comparing baseline characteristics between racial groups, Asians tended to exhibit worse prognostic features in that they had poorer functional status (ECOG 2+, 29% vs. 23%, p=0.07) and were more frequently affected by larger tumors (>4 cm, 33% vs 21%, p=0.02) and by oral cavity cancers (38% vs. 25%, p<0.001) than non-Asians. With respect to treatment, Asians were less likely to receive multimodality therapy than non-Asians (90% vs. 95%, p=0.02). Upon adjusting for prognostic factors, multivariate models showed that non-Asians actually had significantly higher odds of death when compared to Asians (HR 2.46, 95%CI 1.25-4.87, p=0.009). Advanced age, worse ECOG, greater tumor size, and lack of treatment also correlated with inferior OS. Conclusions: In addition to the racial differences reported in the literature for nasopharyngeal carcinoma, we observed variations in non-nasopharyngeal HNC outcomes between Asians and non-Asians. Despite worse prognostic features and less treatment, Asians exhibited better survival than non-Asians, suggesting a potential difference in tumor biology, pharmacogenetics, or predisposition to HPV exposure.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.397 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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