Trial reportCancer research communications2026
The KRAS-Variant and Cetuximab in HPV-Positive Oropharyngeal Cancer: Results from the NRG/RTOG 1016 Trial.
Trial report in Cancer research communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeNRG/RTOG 1016 was a phase III noninferiority trial comparing IMRT + cisplatin versus IMRT + cetuximab for human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (HPV+ OPSCC). A germline mutation (the KRAS-variant) previously identified patients with improved outcomes to radiation + cetuximab + cisplatin; thus, we investigated whether there may be similar benefits for IMRT + cetuximab. PATIENTS AND
methods562 patients were tested, with 16% positive for the KRAS-variant. Clinical endpoints were per NRG/RTOG 1016, and hazard ratios (HR) were estimated by Cox models. Negative binomial regression modeled treatment-related acute and late grade 3 to 5 adverse events (AE). All models included KRAS, assigned treatment, their interaction, and other prognostic variables tested at two-sided 0.05.
resultsThere was no association between the KRAS-variant and clinical outcomes. There were higher local-regional failure rates (LRF) in nonvariant patients treated with cetuximab [HR = 1.83 (1.19-2.82)] versus KRAS-variant patients [HR (95% CI), 0.90 (0.34-2.41)]. Grade 3 to 4 acute mucositis was higher in nonvariant patients treated with cetuximab [OR = 1.41 (95% CI, 0.98-2.03)] and lower in KRAS-variant patients [OR = 0.60 (95% CI, 0.25-1.41)]. However, the mean late toxicity ratio was lower in nonvariant patients [0.55 (95% CI, 0.35-0.87)] versus KRAS-variant patients [1.62 (95% CI, 0.57-4.62)]. KRAS by treatment interaction for acute and late AEs was not significant (P = 0.0717 and 0.0659, respectively).
conclusionsPossible lower LRF and less acute toxicity with cetuximab versus cisplatin for KRAS-variant patients seem to be offset by potentially increased late toxicity. Further evaluation of this class of biomarkers is warranted. SIGNIFICANCE: Germline microRNA-disrupting biomarkers are functional biomarkers being studied to help guide treatment personalization in cancer. The work in this study is a hypothesis-generating evaluation of the KRAS-variant as a potential biomarker to help predict outcomes and toxicity in patients with head and neck cancer treated with radiation and cetuximab. Findings from this work suggest that these biomarkers may have the potential to differentiate patients at risk of acute versus late toxicity, supporting further study of these biomarkers in radiation studies.
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.