Treatment outcomes and survival following definitive (chemo)radiotherapy in <scp>HPV</scp>‐positive oropharynx cancer: Large‐scale comparison of <scp>DAHANCA</scp> vs <scp>PMH</scp> cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compare outcomes in two large-scale contemporaneously treated HPV-positive (HPV+) oropharynx cancer (OPC) cohorts treated with definitive radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy (RT/CRT). p16-confirmed HPV+ OPC treated between 2007 and 2015 at PMH and DAHANCA were identified. Locoregional failure (LRF), distant metastasis (DM), and overall survival (OS) were compared. Multivariable analysis (MVA) calculated adjusted-hazard-ratio (aHR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI), adjusting for cohort, age, gender, performance status, smoking pack-years, T-category and N-category and chemotherapy. Compared to PMH (n = 701), DAHANCA (n = 1174) contained lower TNM-8T-categories (T1-T2: 77% vs 56%), N-categories (N0-N1: 77% vs 67%) and stages (stage I: 63% vs 44% (all P < .001). PMH used standard-fractionation CRT in 69% (481) while 31% (220) received hypofractionated or moderately accelerated RT-alone. All DAHANCA patients were treated with moderately accelerated RT; 96% (1129) received nimorazole (NIM) and 73% (856) concurrent weekly cisplatin. DAHANCA had shorter overall-treatment-time (P < .001), lower gross tumor (66-68 vs 70 Gy) and elective neck (50 vs 56 Gy) doses. Median follow-up was 4.8 years. DAHANCA had higher 5-year LRF (13% vs 7%, aHR = 0.47 [0.34-0.67]), comparable DM (7% vs 12%, aHR = 1.32 [0.95-1.82]), but better OS (85% vs 80%, aHR = 1.30 [1.01-1.68]). CRT patients had a lower risk of LRF (aHR 0.56 [0.39-0.82]), DM (aHR 0.70 [0.50-1.00]) and death (aHR 0.39 [0.29-0.52]) vs RT-alone. We observed exemplary outcomes for two large-scale trans-Atlantic HPV+ OPC cohorts treated in a similar manner. Concurrent chemotherapy was a strong, independent prognostic factor for all endpoints. Our findings underscore the need for a very careful approach to de-intensification of treatment for this disease.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".