ArticleInfectious agents and cancer2025
Prognostic analysis of inconsistent combinations of HPV and p16 in a Chinese/Asian oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma population.
Article in Infectious agents and cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic Implications of p16 Immunohistochemistry and Its Discordance with Transcriptionally Active HPV in Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Taiwanese Cohort Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Oncogenic viruses and their role in oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Prediction of local recurrence in cohorts of head and neck cancer patients after intensity-modulated radiation therapy based on CT radiomics: A double-center observation study.Translational oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate the effect of inconsistent expression of p16 and HPV on the prognosis of patients with Oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) in Chinese/Asian populations.
methodsThe study included 130 patients. Inclusion criteria were primary OPSCC. The primary outcome was the proportion of cohort patients showing different combinations of p16 and HPV outcomes, as well as overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Patients with relapsed or metastatic disease or palliative care were excluded from the survival analysis. A multivariate analysis model was used to calculate the adjusted hazard ratio for overall survival for different p16 and HPV tests, adjusted for pre-specified confounders.
resultsAmong the 130 patients, 25 (19.2%) demonstrated inconsistency between HPV and p16 expressions. The inconsistency in HPV/p16 status was significantly associated with patient age, smoking history, and alcohol consumption, leading to significant differences in tumor site, TNM staging, and differentiation, thereby influencing treatment decisions. There were significant differences in OS (P = 0.04) and PFS (P = 0.011) among the three groups, with the inconsistent group falling between the HPV+/p16 + group and the HPV-/p16- group but closer to the latter. Out of 54 p16-positive patients, only 33 (61.1%) were HPV-positive, indicating a lower predictive value of p16 for HPV positivity in OPSCC than observed in Western populations. Moreover, the study suggested a potential positive correlation between p16 expression intensity and improved patient prognosis.
conclusionIn the China/Asia region, where HPV infection rates are relatively low, the predictive power of p16 for HPV-related OPSCC is low. We recommend additional HPV testing in patients with p16 + OPSCC to improve diagnostic accuracy, thereby enabling the selection of the best de-escalation treatment strategy, increasing treatment response rates, and ultimately improving the overall prognosis in these patients.
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.