A comparison of timing and patterns of treatment failure, and survival outcomes after progression between <scp>HPV</scp>+ and <scp>HPV</scp>− patients undergoing chemoradiation for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to analyze and compare the timing and patterns of treatment failure, and survival after progression between HPV-positive (HPV+) and HPV-negative (HPV-) patients undergoing chemoradiation for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCC). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients undergoing primary chemoradiation for OPSCC between 2008 and 2021. Demographic and clinical data were collected. Kaplan-Meier estimates for overall survival (OS), and time to recurrence/metastases (TTR) were compared using the log-rank test, with Cox regression used for multivariable modeling comparing HPV+ and HPV- patients. RESULTS: HPV- patients developed recurrence or metastases at earlier time points than HPV+ patients (8.8 vs. 15.2 months, p < 0.05), due to earlier local/locoregional recurrence and distant metastases, but not isolated regional recurrences. HPV- distant metastases exclusively occurred in a single organ, most commonly the lungs or bone, while HPV+ metastases frequently had multi-organ involvement in a wide variety of locations (p < 0.05). Once progression (recurrence/metastases) was diagnosed, HPV+ patients experienced superior survival to HPV- patients on univariate and multivariate analysis, largely due to improved outcomes after treatment of local/locoregional recurrences (p < 0.05). There were no differences in survival after isolated regional recurrences or distant metastases. CONCLUSION: HPV+ OPSCC patients relapse later compared to HPV- patients in local/locoregional and distant sites. HPV+ patients with local/locoregional recurrence experience superior survival after recurrence, which does not hold true for isolated regional recurrences or distant metastases. These data can be useful to inform prognosis and guide treatment decisions in patients with recurrent OPSCC.
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) | 0.001 | 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".