5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Prognostic Significance of Extranodal Extension in HPV-Mediated Oropharyngeal Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      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

          Objective

          To determine the prognostic role of extranodal extension (ENE) among patients with human papilloma virus–positive (HPV+) oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) through a systematic review and meta-analysis of institutional studies.

          Data Sources

          MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and PubMed.

          Review Methods

          Two independent authors searched the databases on December 3, 2019, to identify studies of HPV+ OPSCC comparing prognostic outcomes stratified by ENE. The I 2 statistic was used to determine study heterogeneity. Fixed and random effects models were used to determine hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs.

          Results

          Eighteen observational studies met inclusion criteria, yielding 3603 patients with HPV+ OPSCC (1521 ENE+ and 2082 ENE–) with a median follow-up of 49 months. The presence of pathologic ENE (pENE) and radiologic ENE (rENE) was associated with decreased overall survival (pENE HR, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.15-3.13], I 2 = 35%; rENE HR, 2.64 [95% CI, 1.46-4.78], I 2 = 75%) and distant recurrence (pENE HR, 3.23 [95% CI, 1.25-8.33], I 2 = 0%; rENE HR, 3.83 [95% CI, 1.88-7.80], I 2 = 0%). Neither pENE nor rENE was associated with locoregional recurrence (pENE HR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.20-2.84], I 2 = 0%; rENE HR, 2.03 [95% CI, 0.86-4.79], I 2 = 0%). pENE was not associated with disease-specific survival (pENE HR, 1.45 [95% CI, 0.84-2.49], I 2 = 0%).

          Conclusion

          pENE and rENE are moderately associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality and recurrence with distant metastasis in a cohort of patients with HPV+ OPSCC. These findings may be used to inform exclusion criteria for deintensification trials and assist in refined risk stratification.

          Related collections

          Most cited references86

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

              The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery
                Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
                SAGE Publications
                0194-5998
                1097-6817
                April 2021
                August 25 2020
                April 2021
                : 164
                : 4
                : 720-732
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
                [2 ]Department of Otolaryngology, School of Medicine, New York University, New York, New York, USA
                [3 ]Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Advent Health Celebration, Celebration, Florida, USA
                [4 ]Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery (Collaborative), University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA
                [5 ]Division of Otolaryngology, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
                [6 ]Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
                Article
                10.1177/0194599820951176
                32838649
                5ebe99c9-8202-4deb-9990-3f65e8adfa8a
                © 2021

                http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article