ArticleBioMed research international2014
Outcome and prognostic factors in T4a oropharyngeal carcinoma, including the role of HPV infection.
Article in BioMed research international, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Frequency and accuracy of intraoperative bone margin sampling for T4a cancers of the head and neck at the QEII Health Sciences Centre: a retrospective chart review.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale · 2023Article
- The Hybrid Transoral-Pharyngotomy Approach to Oropharyngeal Carcinoma: Technique and Outcome.The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prognosis of patients with advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPSCC) is generally poor. The aim of this study is to investigate the different therapeutic approaches and identify prognostic factors associated with a worse outcome for patients treated for T4a OPSCC, in order to improve treatment selection for the individual.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted on 426 patients with T4a OPC treated between 1980 and 2010. Eleven prognostic factors including treatment modality, lymph node staging, and p16 status as a surrogate marker for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection were analyzed.
resultsUnivariate analysis showed a significant difference in DSS between N0 and N+ (57.1% versus 26.9%, P < 0.001), primary surgical and primary nonsurgical treatment (52.7% versus 31.4%, P < 0.001), and perinodal invasion (51.7% versus 19.9%, P = 0.011). P16-negative patients tended towards a worse DSS than p16-positive patients (40.2% versus 64.6%, P = 0.126) but responded better to primary surgery than to nonsurgical treatment (71.4% versus 34.0%, P = 0.113). Multivariate analysis identified the N category as an independent prognostic factor for survival.
conclusionThe survival of p16-negative patients was worse than p16-positive patients, although they seem to respond better to primary surgery. The strongest independent prognostic factor for T4a carcinomas proved to be the presence of lymph node metastases.
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.