Clinical presentation and outcome of human papillomavirus‐positive nasopharyngeal carcinoma in a North American cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to describe the clinical presentation and outcomes of human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) versus Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-positive NPC and HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). METHODS: Clinical characteristics and presenting signs/symptoms were compared between patients who had viral-related NPC versus viral-related OPC treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy from 2005 to 2020 and who were matched 1:1 (by tumor and lymph node categories, smoking, age, sex, histology, and year of diagnosis). Locoregional control (LRC), distant control (DC), and overall survival (OS) were compared using the 2005-2018 cohort to maintain 2 years of minimum follow-up. Multivariable analysis was used to evaluate the cohort effect. RESULTS: ; p = .002), with marginally more Level IB nodal involvement. More patients with HPV-positive NPC complained of local pain (38% vs. 3%; p = .002). The median follow-up for the 2005-2018 cohort was 5.3 years. Patients who had HPV-positive NPC (n = 20) had rates of 3-year LRC (95% vs. 90%; p = .360), DC (75% vs. 87%; p = .188), and OS (84% vs. 89%; p = .311) similar to the rates in those who had EBV-positive NPC (n = 374). Patients who had HPV-positive NPC also had rates of LRC (95% vs. 94%; p = .709) and OS (84% vs. 87%; p = .440) similar to the rates in those who had HPV-positive OPC (n = 1287). The DC rate was lower in patients who had HPV-positive disease (75% vs. 90%; p = .046), but the difference became nonsignificant (p = .220) when the analysis was adjusted for tumor and lymph node categories, smoking, and chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: HPV-positive NPC and EBV-positive NPC seem to be mutually exclusive diseases. Patients who have HPV-positive NPC have greater local symptom burden and larger primary tumors but have similar outcomes compared with patients who have EBV-positive NPC or HPV-positive OPC.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".