Development and Validation of Nomograms Predictive of Overall and Progression-Free Survival in Patients With Oropharyngeal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Treatment of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) is evolving toward risk-based modification of therapeutic intensity, which requires patient-specific estimates of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Methods To develop and validate nomograms for OS and PFS, we used a derivation cohort of 493 patients with OPSCC with known p16 tumor status (surrogate of human papillomavirus) and cigarette smoking history (pack-years) randomly assigned to clinical trials using platinum-based chemoradiotherapy (NRG Oncology Radiation Therapy Oncology Group [RTOG] 0129 and 0522). Nomograms were created from Cox models and internally validated by use of bootstrap and cross-validation. Model discrimination was measured by calibration plots and the concordance index. Nomograms were externally validated in a cohort of 153 patients with OPSCC randomly assigned to a third trial, NRG Oncology RTOG 9003. Results Both models included age, Zubrod performance status, pack-years, education, p16 status, and T and N stage; the OS model also included anemia and age × pack-years interaction; and the PFS model also included marital status, weight loss, and p16 × Zubrod interaction. Predictions correlated well with observed 2-year and 5-year outcomes. The uncorrected concordance index was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.80) for OS and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.74) for PFS, and bias-corrected indices were similar. In the validation set, OS and PFS models were well calibrated, and OS and PFS were significantly different across tertiles of nomogram scores (log-rank P = .003;< .001). Conclusion The validated nomograms provided useful prediction of OS and PFS for patients with OPSCC treated with primary radiation-based therapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".