Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25419379›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2014

Prognostic significance of high-risk human papillomavirus and p16(INK4A) in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Fangli Cao, Weihong Zhang, Fang Zhang, Hui Han, Junlong Xu, Yufeng Cheng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Viral Pathogens in Oesophageal and Gastric Cancer.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Fangli CaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University 107#, Wenhua Xi Road, Jinan, China ; Department of Oncology, Liaocheng People's Hospital Liaocheng, China.
Weihong ZhangDepartment of Oncology, Liaocheng People's Hospital Liaocheng, China.
Fang ZhangDepartment of Oncology, The First Hospital of Zibo Zibo, China.
Hui HanDepartment of Oncology, Liaocheng People's Hospital Liaocheng, China.
Junlong XuDepartment of Pathology, Liaocheng People's Hospital Liaocheng, China.
Yufeng ChengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University 107#, Wenhua Xi Road, Jinan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prognostic value of the HPV status in ESCC is much controversial, this study aimed to determine the prognostic importance of high-risk HPV and p16 in patients with ESCC. A total of 105 consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy in 2008 were included in this study. All specimens with ESCC were tested by in situ hybridization for HPV16/18 and immunohistochemistry for p16 expression. Kappa values were calculated using Cohen's kappa test. The 5-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated in relation to the two markers and the Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the hazard ratio (HR) of variables. Thirty-nine (37.1%) of 105 were p16-positive, and HPV was detected in 29 of the 105 patients (27.6%) with ESCC. P16 was detected in 25 of the 29 patients (86.2%) who were HPV-positive, and only 14 of 76 patients (18.4%) who were HPV-negative (P < 0.001). Cohen's kappa coefficient revealed an agreement in two researchers (kappa = 0.61). The 5-year OS rate and PFS rate in the p16-positive group were 64.1% and 58.7%, respectively, and the rates in the p16-negative group were 45.5%, 37.9%, respectively. The difference of survival rate between the two groups remained statistically significant. P16-positive patients had better 5-year rates of OS and PFS than p16-negative group (P = 0.02 and P = 0.007 by the Log-rank test, respectively). Using HPV status as a stratification factor, we found differences in OS and PFS that were consistent with those based on p16 expression. P16 is a very good marker of HPV infection for ESCC. HPV-positive or p16-positive ESCC is a distinct entity with a favorable prognosis compared with HPV-negative or p16-negative ESCC.

Indexed as

esophageal cancerHuman papillomavirusp16INK4Aprognosissquamous cell carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID25419379
PMCPMC4238498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.