4.5 Article

Morphologic and topographic radiologic features of human papillomavirus-related and -unrelated oropharyngeal carcinoma

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hed.24764

Keywords

human papillomavirus (HPV); human papillomavirus (HPV)-associative models; nomograms; oropharyngeal carcinoma; radiologic features

Funding

  1. Wharton Head and Neck Translational
  2. Petersen-Turofsky Fund
  3. The Joe and Cara Finley Center for Head and Neck Cancer Research at the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation
  4. Dr Mariano Elia Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinicoradiologic characteristics of human papillomavirus (HPV)-related (HPV-positive) and HPV-unrelated (HPV-negative) oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC). Methods: Primary tumor and lymph node features of HPV-positive and HPV-negative OPCs from 2008 to 2013 were compared on pretreatment CT/MRI. Intrarater/interrater concordance was assessed. Multivariable analyses identified factors associated with HPV-positivity to be used in nomogram construction. Results: Compared to HPV-negative (n 5 194), HPV-positive (n = 488) tumors were more exophytic (73% vs 63%; p = .02) with well-defined border (58% vs 47%; p = .033) and smaller axial dimensions; lymph node involvement predominated (89% vs 69%; p < .001) with cystic appearance (45% vs 32%; p = .009) but similar topography. Intrarater/interrater concordance varied (fair to excellent). Nomograms combining clinical (age, sex, smoking pack-years, subsite, T/N classification) and/or radiologic (nonnecrotic tumor and cystic lymph node) features were used to weigh the likelihood of HPV-driven tumors (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.84). Conclusion: HPV-positive OPC has different radiologic tumor (exophytic/well-defined border/smaller axial dimension) and lymph node (cystic) features but similar lymph node topography.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available