Distinct Outcomes of Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients after Distant Failure According to p16 Status: Implication in Therapeutic Options
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Recent modifications in the epidemiology of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) have led to the increase of Human papillomavirus (HPV) related metastatic head and neck cancer patients with high life expectancy even at advanced stage, low comorbidity and still restricted systemic therapy opportunities. In the recent era of ablative therapies’ development, oligometastatic HPV OSCC patients are indubitably good candidates for intensified treatment. However, data related to outcomes after optimised management of metastatic sites are dramatically missing. Materials and patients: In our cohort of 186 unselected consecutive OSCC patients treated with curative intent at our institution between 2009 and 2013, we analysed the incidence, treatment and outcomes of distant metastatic (DM) failure according to p16 status. Results: After a median follow-up of 4.2 years (95% CI: 3.8–4.4) from primary diagnosis of OSCC, 21/95 p16− patients (22.1%) vs. 8/91 (8.8%) p16+ patients presented DM failure with a median interval of 11 (range 0–46) and 28 months (range 0–71), respectively (p = 0.10). Overall survival (OS) after DM failure was significantly higher in p16+ patients with a two-year OS rate of 75% and 15% for p16+ and p16−, respectively (p = 0.002). In eight HPV-related metastatic patients, three underwent ablative lung metastasis treatment and are still complete responders four to five years later. Conclusion: This study highlights distinct outcomes of metastatic HPV-related OSCC patients emphasised by three long-term complete responders after lung ablative treatment. In patients with high life expectancy and limited tumour burden, the question of ablative treatment such as metastasectomy or stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SBRT) should be addressed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".