ArticleHead & neck2026
Disease Site-Specific Outcomes in p16-Positive Non-Oropharyngeal Mucosal Head and Neck Cancer.
Article in Head & neck, 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.
- Disease Site-Specific Outcomes in p16-Positive Non-Oropharyngeal Mucosal Head and Neck Cancer.Head & neck · 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo report disease-free survival (DFS) in p16-positive non-oropharyngeal head-and-neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC).
methodsCuratively-treated non-oropharyngeal HNSCC (2009-2021) were reviewed. DFS was compared among p16-positive, p16-negative, and p16-untested cases for the overall cohort and by disease site. Multivariable analysis estimated adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for p16-positivity.
resultsAmong 3061 non-oropharyngeal HNSCC, 91 p16+, 375 p16-, 2595 untested; median follow-up 4.7 years. P16-positive patients had superior 5-year DFS versus p16-/untested (74% vs. 48%/59%; aHR 0.40 [0.26-0.61], p < 0.001). This advantage was evident in the larynx (86% vs. 52%/63%; aHR 0.26 [0.09-0.71], p = 0.005), hypopharynx (70% vs. 25%/37%; aHR 0.55 [0.10-0.50], p < 0.001), and nasal cavity (82% vs. 38%/66%; aHR 0.31 [0.11-0.88], p = 0.028). No significant DFS differences were seen in paranasal sinus (40% vs. 64%/41%; p = 0.39) or oral cavity (50% vs. 57%/58%; p = 0.94).
conclusionp16-positivity confers a DFS benefit in larynx/hypopharynx/nasal cavity, but not in paranasal sinus or oral SCC.
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.