ArticleThe oncologist2024
Association of human papillomavirus genotype and phylogenic clade with oropharyngeal cancer outcomes.
Article in The oncologist, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV)+ oropharynx cancer (OPC) has a more favorable prognosis than HPV-negative disease, but the impact of specific HPV genotype and phylogenic clade on patient outcomes is not well understood and has profound implications for treatment de-intensification.
methodsThe objective of this single-institution cohort study was to investigate the association of HPV genotype (16 vs high-risk non-16) and clade (A9 vs A7) with OPC outcomes. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) in patients with M0 disease treated with curative intent.
resultsThe cohort included 598 patients (87% HPV16, 98% A9). Compared to those with HPV16 OPC, individuals with non-HPV16 OPC had a higher age, comorbidity index, and proportion of non-whites, HIV+ patients, T4 tumors, and stage IV disease (AJCC 7th edition). Non-HPV16 genotype was associated with worse OS in univariate (HR = 2.17, 95% CI, 1.24-3.80, P = .0066), but not in multivariate analysis (HRadj = 0.84, 95% CI, 0.43-1.62, P = .5921). A7 clade was associated with worse OS in univariate (HR = 4.42, 95% CI, 1.60-12.30, P = .0041), but not in multivariate analysis (HRadj = 2.39, 95% CI, 0.57-9.99, P = .2325). Neither HPV genotype (HR = 1.60, 95% CI, 0.99-2.60, P = .0566) nor phylogenic clade (HR = 2.47, 95% CI, 0.91-6.72, P = .0761) was associated with EFS.
conclusionNon-HPV16 genotype and A7 clade were associated with worse OS and trended toward worse EFS in univariate analyses. The survival differences were more pronounced by phylogenic clade than by HPV16 status, suggesting that the former may be a more useful classification for future studies. However, neither HPV16 status nor phylogenic clade was prognostic when adjusting for patient and tumor covariates, raising the question as to whether possible differences in outcomes are related to distinct clinical profiles rather than inherent viral properties.
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.