Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

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

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Nasopharyngeal malignancies in Denmark diagnosed from 1980 to 2014

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Association between human papillomavirus status and health-related quality of life in oropharyngeal and oral cavity cancer survivors

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Comorbidity in HPV+ and HPV- oropharyngeal cancer patients: A population-based, case-control study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. The effects of checkpoint inhibition on head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: A systematic review

    Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

  1. Distant metastases in squamous cell carcinoma of the pharynx and larynx: a population-based DAHANCA study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Iatrogenic cerebral radiation necrosis

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalOral Oncology
Volume81
Pages (from-to)52-60
Number of pages9
ISSN1368-8375
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2018

ID: 54657259