Potential clinical implications of <scp>HPV</scp> status and expressions of p53 and cyclin D1 among oropharyngeal cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that high-risk human papillomavirus plays significant role in oropharyngeal cancer; however, there is lack of knowledge on the interplay between the virus and its downstream-related molecules and their possible prognostic values. The objectives of the study are to better understand the interplay of the HR-HPV and its associated downstream molecules and to evaluate potential biomarkers for patient outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study with available formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue from 244 oropharyngeal cancer patients that received curative radiotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy from 2000 to 2008. In addition to chart review, we performed HPV DNA and RNA in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry for p53, the retinoblastoma protein, p16, and cyclin D1 analysis. Cox proportional hazard and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were used to determine the prognostic markers for clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Patients averaged 57.3 ± 9.4 year-old and were mostly males (76.2%) and ever-smokers (76.2%). All patients received curative radiotherapy, and 44.3% received concurrent chemoradiotherapy. We detected the human papillomavirus in 77.9% of study patients. Ever-smokers, more advanced tumor stage, and receiving radiotherapy only had poorer 5-year overall survival, disease-specific survival, and loco-regional recurrence. Cases with positive human papillomavirus and p53 overexpression had poorer disease-specific survival. Cases without human papillomavirus, but cyclin D1 overexpression, were associated with poorer 5-year overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that additional p53 and cyclin D1 testing may benefit oropharyngeal cancer patients with known human papillomavirus status.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".