13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Prognostic Value of p16 Status on the Development of a Complete Response in Involved Oropharynx Cancer Neck Nodes After Cisplatin-Based Chemoradiation: A Secondary Analysis of NRG Oncology RTOG 0129

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          To determine the relationship between p16 status and the regional response of patients with node-positive oropharynx cancer treated on NRG Oncology RTOG 0129.

          Methods and Materials

          Patients with N1-N3 oropharynx cancer and known p16 status who underwent treatment on RTOG 0129 were analyzed. Pathologic complete response (pCR) rates in patients treated with a postchemoradiation neck dissection (with p16-positive or p16-negative cancer) were compared by Fisher exact test. Patients managed expectantly were compared with those treated with a neck dissection.

          Results

          Ninety-nine (34%) of 292 patients with node-positive oropharynx cancer and known p16 status underwent a posttreatment neck dissection (p16-positive: n = 69; p16-negative: n = 30). The remaining 193 patients with malignant lymphadenopathy at diagnosis were observed. Neck dissection was performed a median of 70 (range, 17-169) days after completion of chemoradiation. Neither the pretreatment nodal stage ( P = .71) nor the postradiation, pre-neck dissection clinical/radiographic neck assessment ( P = .42) differed by p16 status. A pCR was more common among p16-positive patients (78%) than p16-negative patients (53%, P = .02) and was associated with a reduced incidence of local–regional failure (hazard ratio 0.33, P = .003). On multivariate analysis of local–regional failure, a test for interaction between pCR and p16 status was not significant ( P = .37). One-hundred ninety-three (66%) of 292 of initially node-positive patients were managed without a posttreatment neck dissection. Development of a clinical (cCR) was not significantly influenced by p16-status ( P = .42). Observed patients with a clinical nodal CR had disease control outcomes similar to those in patients with a pCR neck dissection.

          Conclusions

          Patients with p16-positive tumors had significantly higher pCR and locoregional control rates than those with p16-negative tumors.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          7603616
          4036
          Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
          Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys.
          International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics
          0360-3016
          1879-355X
          19 October 2016
          28 May 2016
          1 October 2016
          25 October 2016
          : 96
          : 2
          : 362-371
          Affiliations
          [* ]Fox Chase Cancer Center
          []NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
          []Centre Hospitalier de l'Universite de Montreal-Notre Dame, Montréal, Québec, Canada
          [§ ]University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
          []L Hotel-Dieu de Quebec, Québec City, Québec, Canada
          []The James Brown Cancer Center–University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky
          [# ]University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, California
          [** ]London Regional Cancer Program, London, Ontario, Canada
          [‡‡ ]Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California
          Author notes
          Reprint requests to: Thomas J. Galloway, MD, Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Ave, Philadelphia, PA 19111. Tel: (215) 728-5536; thomas.galloway@ 123456fccc.edu
          Article
          PMC5078986 PMC5078986 5078986 nihpa823678
          10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.05.026
          5078986
          27478170
          8a9a642d-956c-4172-8660-5ea8d04127f4
          History
          Categories
          Article

          Comments

          Comment on this article