Trial reportScientific reports2021
Differences in clinical and imaging characteristics between p16-positive non-smokers and p16-positive smokers or p16-negative patients in oropharyngeal carcinoma.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Oropharyngeal Carcinoma Presenting as a Large Cervical Mass With Impending Airway Obstruction.Cureus · 2025Article
- The Potential Association between E2F2, MDM2 and p16 Protein Concentration and Selected Sociodemographic and Clinicopathological Characteristics of Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Current issues in molecular biology · 2023Article
- Primary tumor volume and prognosis for patients with p16-positive and p16-negative oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma treated with radiation therapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2022Article
- Current Therapeutic Strategies in Patients with Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Impact of the Tumor HPV Status.Cancers · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The eighth edition of the TNM classifies oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OSCCs) depending on p16 status. Some imaging features are reportedly associated more frequently with p16-positive (P16+) OSCC than p16-negative (p16-) OSCC. However, classical risk factors such as tobacco use were not specifically considered when assessing these imaging features. We aimed to evaluate whether P16+ OSCCs have different epidemiological, clinical, prognostic and imaging features depending on smoking status, and to compare P16+ and p16- groups. A retrospective study of data from 85 patients with P16+ OSCC (41 non-smokers, 44 smokers) and 36 with p16- OSCC from 2011 to 2020 was carried out, assessing epidemiological data, clinical aspects of the tumour and presence of adenopathy. Staging was assessed according to the seventh and eighth editions of the TNM. Compared with P16+ OSCC non-smokers, P16+ OSCC smokers had tumours that were less well-defined (36.6% vs 77.8%, p < 0.001), more ulcerated (85.4% vs 44.4%, p < 0.001) and more necrotic (53.7% vs 25%, p = 0.012). There was also less downstaging from N2 or N3 of the seventh edition of the TNM to N1 of the eighth edition for smokers than non-smokers (22.7% vs 43.9%, p = 0.042). Compared with p16- tumours, more P16+ tumours had well-defined contours (55.8% vs 22.2%, p = 0.001), were exophytic (89.6% vs 72.2%, p = 0.023), less necrotic (40.3% vs 80.6%, p < 0.001), less ulcerated (97.2% vs 66.2%, p = 0.006) and involved less muscle tissue (26.0% vs 47.2%, p = 0.027).P16+ OSCCs of smokers show clinical, imaging and prognostic differences with P16+ OSCCs of non-smokers.
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.