ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2014
Surgically treated oropharyngeal cancer: risk factors and tumor characteristics.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical Treatment for Advanced Oropharyngeal Cancer: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Development of second primary malignancies after transoral surgery in human papilloma virus-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.Head & neck · 2022Article
- Searching for New Molecular Targets for Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma with a View to Clinical Implementation of Precision Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Correlation of p16 immunohistochemistry with clinical and epidemiological features in oropharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma.PloS one · 2021Article
- Two for the price of one: Prevalence, demographics and treatment implications of multiple HPV mediated Head and Neck Cancers.Oral oncology · 2020Article
- Detection of HPV infection in head and neck cancers: Promise and pitfalls in the last ten years: A meta-analysis.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2019Article
- The rationale for HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer de-escalation treatment strategies.Contemporary oncology (Poznan, Poland) · 2015Article
- The translational significance of epithelial-mesenchymal transition in head and neck cancer.Clinical and translational medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess risk factors of patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma in the Munich area of Southern Germany in relation to human papillomavirus (HPV) association of the tumors. To demonstrate differences in tumor characteristics and their impact on adjuvant treatment.
methodsBetween November 2010 and July 2013, patients were prospectively interviewed for risk factors before they underwent surgical resection of their tumors. HPV association was evaluated by p16 immunohistochemistry; tumor characteristics and type of adjuvant treatment were recorded. Follow-up data were collected after a median follow-up of 12.1 month.
resultsIn contrast to many recent studies, we could not detect any difference in overall age and age at sexual debut between p16-positive and p16-negative patients. P16-negative patients are characterized by a more intensive tobacco and alcohol use, a more abusive way of consumption, less nonoral and less oral sex partners. P16-positive patients had a significantly higher risk of lymph node metastases, but nevertheless a significant lower risk to recur or to die. No difference in the incidence of synchronous second primary tumors was seen. P16-positive patients generally received a more aggressive adjuvant treatment because of more frequently involved lymph nodes.
conclusionLifestyle risk factors such as smoking, drinking, and sexual habits were independent from age, but showed marked differences between the p16-positive and p16-negative group. Since p16-positive patients were treated more aggressively, it is not possible to distinguish whether the better outcome of HPV-positive patients is a result of less aggressive cancers or more aggressive treatment. With regard to the ongoing debate about treatment deintensification, we should keep in mind that the survival of HPV-positive cancer patients is not 100 %.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.