MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract B027: Early-Onset Head and Neck Cancer: Implications for Risk Stratification and Survival

2025· article· en· W4417202225 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Morgan C. Byrd, Joab O. Odera, Trisha Kibugi, Rong Jiang, Tammara L. Watts, Nosayaba Osazuwa-Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuartileOddsLogistic regressionOdds ratioProportional hazards modelComorbidityHazard ratioIncidence (geometry)Cancer registry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Head and neck cancers (HNC) represent nearly 4% of all cancers in the U.S., with established risk factors including tobacco, alcohol, and human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. While the mean age at diagnosis is 64 years, ∼20% of cases occur in adults <55, and 4–6% in those <40. Reports suggest rising incidence of early-onset HNC. A subset of younger patients without previously established risk factors indicates alternative etiologies. We aimed to describe demographic determinants of early-onset HNC and evaluate survival differences by age of onset. Methods: We analyzed data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2004–2022, including adults with HNC diagnosis codes (n=816,747). The NCDB is a clinical registry with data abstracted from patient records at Commission on Cancer–accredited facilities. Multivariable logistic regression estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for early-onset HNC (<50 years) vs. traditional onset (≥50 years), adjusting for sex, race, ethnicity, Great Circle distance, Charlson-Deyo comorbidity (CDCC) score, and HPV-tumor status. Distance was analyzed in quartiles. Cox proportional hazards models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) by age of onset, adjusting for the same variables plus tumor stage. Results: In adjusted models, several demographics were significantly associated with early-onset HNC. Males were linked to slightly lower odds than females (aOR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.86–0.99). White adults had reduced odds compared to Black adults (aOR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.48–0.57), as did Non-Hispanic vs. Hispanic adults (aOR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.51–0.63). Greater distance from reporting facility showed a dose-response association, with higher quartiles linked to increased odds (Quartile 4 vs. 1 aOR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.15–1.35). Higher comorbidity burden was associated with lower odds (CDCC 1 aOR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.49–0.59; CDCC 2 aOR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.23–0.34; CDCC 3 aOR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.23–0.35). HPV-positive tumors were more common in early-onset cases (aOR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.17–1.33). In survival analyses, adults aged 40–49 had improved survival vs. those ≥50 (aHR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.82–0.97), while survival among those 18–39 was similar (aHR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.78–1.19). Male sex (aHR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.91–0.99) and White race (aHR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89–0.99) were associated with modest survival benefits. Increasing comorbidity burden was linked to worse survival (CDCC 1 vs. 0 aHR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.04–1.14; CDCC 2 vs. 0 aHR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.11–1.27; CDCC 3 vs. 0 aHR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.16–1.33), as was advanced stage. HPV-positive tumors were associated with improved survival (aHR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.84–0.91). Conclusions: These findings underscore the need to investigate non-traditional risk factors and biological mechanisms underlying early-onset HNC, especially in subgroups not explained by conventional exposures. Citation Format: Morgan C. Byrd, Joab O. Odera, Trisha Kibugi, Rong Jiang, Tammara Watts, Nosayaba Osazuwa-Peters. Early-Onset Head and Neck Cancer: Implications for Risk Stratification and Survival [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: The Rise in Early-Onset Cancers—Knowledge Gaps and Research Opportunities; 2025 Dec 10-13; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2025;31(23_Suppl):Abstract nr B027.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.319
GPT teacher head0.594
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer Research→Same topicHead and Neck Cancer Studies→French-language works237,207→