Long-term survival and swallowing outcomes in advanced stage oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of studies reporting long-term survival outcomes for HPV/p16 positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). This study aims to compare long-term outcomes of advanced stage p16 positive and negative OPSCCs, treated by surgical and non-surgical modalities. METHODS: OPSCC patients from 1998 to 2012 were identified through a prospectively collected cancer registry. P16 immunohistochemistry was used as a surrogate marker for HPV-OPSCC. Overall survival (OS) and aspiration free survival (AFS) comparisons were made between patients treated with chemoradiation (CRT) versus primary surgery and radiation/chemoradiation (S+RT/CRT) at 5, 10 and 15 years post-treatment. RESULTS: A total of 319 patients were included. P16 positive patients and non-smokers had significantly higher long-term (5, 10 and 15-year) OS. Smokers and p16 negative patients treated with S+RT/CRT had improved long-term OS compared to patients who received CRT. Smokers and p16 negative patients had lower long-term AFS. Multivariate analysis showed improved OS was associated with p16 positivity (HR 0.42, 0.28-0.61) and surgery (HR 0.47, 0.32-0.69), whereas lower OS was associated with ECOG ≥ 2 (HR 2.46, 1.61-3.77), smoking (HR 2.37, 1.41-3.99) and higher stage (HR 1.68, 1.05-2.68). CONCLUSIONS: In smokers and p16-negative OPSCC patients, primary surgery may be associated with improved long-term survival and dysphagia-related outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".