ArticleInternational journal of cancer2025
Age and tumour presentations differ between HPV type 16 positive and other high-risk HPV type-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas in a Swedish cohort of 2000-2022.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oncogenic viruses and their role in oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Age and tumour presentations differ between HPV type 16 positive and other high-risk HPV type-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas in a Swedish cohort of 2000-2022.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The incidence of human papillomavirus positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV+ OPSCC) has increased the past decades. Initial reports disclosed that HPV type 16 (HPV16) was predominant and that patients with HPV+ OPSCC were generally younger and had a better prognosis than those with HPV negative (HPV-) OPSCC. However, recent reports suggest that age differences between patients with HPV+ and HPV-OPSCC are less pronounced and that other high-risk HPV types (HR-HPV) are becoming more common. Here, we therefore investigated whether there were age differences between patients with HPV16-positive and other HR-HPV type positive OPSCC. During 2000-2022, in the Stockholm-Gotland-Region, Sweden, 1681 patients with OPSCC tested for the presence of common mucosal HPV types were included. Among these, 1180 cases had a HR-HPV type infection, with 1032 identified as HPV16 and 148 as other HR-HPV types; one with a low-risk HPV type infection; and 500 classified as HPV-. Patients with HPV+ OPSCC were significantly younger than those with HPV- OPSCC (mean 63 vs. 66.5, p <.001). Among patients with HPV+ OPSCC, those diagnosed with HPV16 were significantly younger than those with other HR-HPV types (mean 61.1 vs. 64.5, p< 0.001). These age differences were present irrespective of sex, but patients with HPV16-positive OPSCC were significantly more likely to present with smaller tumours upon diagnosis (p = 0.002). Moreover, notably, statistically significant age differences between HPV16 and other HR-HPV types were mainly observed in the more recent years (2010-2022). To conclude, the increasing influence of HR-HPV types other than HPV16 in OPSCC warrants further investigation.
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.