Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40136303›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Patient Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma in Nonendemic Regions.

Mohammad Bilal Alsavaf, Matthew Marquardt, Moataz D Abouammo, Menglin Xu, Ahmed Elguindy, John Grecula, Sujith Baliga, David Konieczkowski, Emile Gogineni, Priyanka Bhateja and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. SEOM-TTCC clinical guideline for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (update 2025).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Survival and patterns of recurrence in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma from a non-endemic region-A German multicenter analysis.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

16 authors.

Mohammad Bilal AlsavafDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
Matthew MarquardtThe Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.
Moataz D AbouammoDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
Menglin XuDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
Ahmed ElguindyDivision of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
John GreculaDivision of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
Sujith BaligaDivision of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
David KonieczkowskiDivision of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
Emile GogineniDivision of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
Priyanka BhatejaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
James W RoccoDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
Matthew O OldDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
Dukagjin M BlakajDivision of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
Ricardo L CarrauDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
Kyle K VanKoeveringDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
Marcelo BonomiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) presents unique challenges in nonendemic regions, with varying patient characteristics and outcomes compared with endemic populations. Objective: To fill gaps in the current understanding of NPC by focusing on a US population, comparing patient characteristics and treatment outcomes with endemic populations, and identifying key factors to inform management and follow-up protocols in Western health care settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included patients with NPC treated at a single large US tertiary academic medical center from 2000 to 2023. The study analyzed patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment modalities, and survival outcomes. Data were analyzed from January to July 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and recurrence-free survival, stratified by patient characteristics, tumor types, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) status, and p16 expression. Results: The sample included 159 adult patients with NPC (median [range] age, 53.5 [18-90] years; 117 [73.6%] male), with 23 African American patients (15.3%), 21 Asian patients (14.0%), and 106 White patients (70.7%). World Health Organization type III tumors predominated (88 patients [68.8%]), followed by type II (25 patients [19.5%]) and type I (15 patients [11.7%]). EBV positivity rates varied significantly by race (Asian: 13 patients [81.3%]; African American: 17 patients [63.0%]; White: 40 patients [47.0%]; P = .03) and WHO type (type III: 50 patients [72.5%]; type II: 10 patients [48.0%]; type I: 0 patients; P < .001). p16 status, a proxy for human papillomavirus status, did not vary by race but did vary by histopathologies (type III: 12 patients [28.5%]; type II: 12 patients [63.0%]; type I: 3 patients [43.0%]; P = .04). On Kaplan-Meier curves, stratifying p16 by EBV status eliminated its assumed association with OS. Multivariate analysis revealed that increasing age (hazard ratio [HR] per 1-year increase, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.00-1.05]; P = .04) and former smoking status (HR, 2.29 [95% CI, 1.03-5.10]; P = .04) were associated with inferior OS, while WHO type III tumors were associated with better OS compared with type I (HR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.17-0.87]; P = .02). Male sex was associated with worse PFS (HR, 5.35 [95% CI, 1.23-23.30]; P = .03). For recurrence-free survival, former smokers (HR, 25.24 [95% CI, 2.56-249.23]; P = .006), current smokers (HR, 44.97 [95% CI, 2.27-892.10]; P = .01), and patients with advanced stages (IVa/b) (HR, 261.34 [95% CI, 3.96-17 258.06]; P = .009) had significantly increased risk. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study contributes to the evolving body of knowledge on NPC in nonendemic regions, finding a shift toward WHO type III tumors and underscoring the association of EBV status with survival outcomes, while highlighting the lack of association between human papillomavirus status and outcomes. Smoking history, advanced stage at diagnosis, male sex, and increasing age emerged as adverse factors. Notably, WHO type I tumors demonstrated particularly poor outcomes, highlighting the need for more intensive follow-up in this subgroup.

Indexed as

Nasopharyngeal CarcinomaNasopharyngeal NeoplasmsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overEpstein-Barr Virus InfectionsFemaleHerpesvirus 4, HumanHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40136303
PMCPMC11947841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.