A clinical prognostic model compared to the newly adopted UICC staging in an independent validation cohort of P16 negative/positive head and neck cancer patients
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
A clinical prognostic model compared to the newly adopted UICC staging in an independent validation cohort of P16 negative/positive head and neck cancer patients. / Rasmussen, Jacob H; Håkansson, Katrin; Rasmussen, Gregers B; Vogelius, Ivan R; Friborg, Jeppe; Fischer, Barbara M; Bentzen, Søren M; Specht, Lena.
I: Oral Oncology, Bind 81, 2018, s. 52-60.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - A clinical prognostic model compared to the newly adopted UICC staging in an independent validation cohort of P16 negative/positive head and neck cancer patients
AU - Rasmussen, Jacob H
AU - Håkansson, Katrin
AU - Rasmussen, Gregers B
AU - Vogelius, Ivan R
AU - Friborg, Jeppe
AU - Fischer, Barbara M
AU - Bentzen, Søren M
AU - Specht, Lena
N1 - Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - OBJECTIVES: A previously published prognostic model in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) was validated in both a p16-negative and a p16-positive independent patient cohort and the performance was compared with the newly adopted 8th edition of the UICC staging system.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with HNSCC treated at a single institution from 2005 to 2012 were included. The cohort was divided in three. 1.) Training cohort, patients treated from 2005 to 2009 excluding patients with p16-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCC); 2.) A p16-negative validation cohort and 3.) A p16-positive validation cohort. A previously published prognostic model (clinical model) with the significant covariates (smoking status, FDG uptake, and tumor volume) was refitted in the training cohort and validated in the two validation cohorts. The clinical model was used to generate four risk groups based on the predicted risk of disease recurrence after 2 years and the performance was compared with UICC staging 8th edition using concordance index.RESULTS: Overall 568 patients were included. Compared to UICC the clinical model had a significantly better concordance index in the p16-negative validation cohort (AUC = 0.63 for UICC and AUC = 0.73 for the clinical model; p = 0.003) and a borderline significantly better concordance index in the p16-positive cohort (AUC = 0.63 for UICC and 0.72 for the clinical model; p = 0.088).CONCLUSION: The validated clinical model provided a better prognostication of risk of disease recurrence than UICC stage in the p16-negative validation cohort, and similar prognostication as the newly adopted 8th edition of the UICC staging in the p16-positive patient cohort.
AB - OBJECTIVES: A previously published prognostic model in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) was validated in both a p16-negative and a p16-positive independent patient cohort and the performance was compared with the newly adopted 8th edition of the UICC staging system.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with HNSCC treated at a single institution from 2005 to 2012 were included. The cohort was divided in three. 1.) Training cohort, patients treated from 2005 to 2009 excluding patients with p16-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCC); 2.) A p16-negative validation cohort and 3.) A p16-positive validation cohort. A previously published prognostic model (clinical model) with the significant covariates (smoking status, FDG uptake, and tumor volume) was refitted in the training cohort and validated in the two validation cohorts. The clinical model was used to generate four risk groups based on the predicted risk of disease recurrence after 2 years and the performance was compared with UICC staging 8th edition using concordance index.RESULTS: Overall 568 patients were included. Compared to UICC the clinical model had a significantly better concordance index in the p16-negative validation cohort (AUC = 0.63 for UICC and AUC = 0.73 for the clinical model; p = 0.003) and a borderline significantly better concordance index in the p16-positive cohort (AUC = 0.63 for UICC and 0.72 for the clinical model; p = 0.088).CONCLUSION: The validated clinical model provided a better prognostication of risk of disease recurrence than UICC stage in the p16-negative validation cohort, and similar prognostication as the newly adopted 8th edition of the UICC staging in the p16-positive patient cohort.
U2 - 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.04.009
DO - 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2018.04.009
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 29884414
VL - 81
SP - 52
EP - 60
JO - Oral Oncology Extra
JF - Oral Oncology Extra
SN - 1741-9409
ER -
ID: 212954852