Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 420

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Combined analysis of HPV‐DNA, p16 and EGFR expression to predict prognosis in oropharyngeal cancer

Open access
Reimers, Niklas, Kasper, Hans U., Weissenborn, Soenke J., Stützer, Hartmut, Preuss, Simon F., Hoffmann, Thomas K., Speel, Ernst Jan M., Dienes, Hans P., Pfister, Herbert J., Guntinas‐Lichius, Orlando, Klussmann, Jens P.·2007·International Journal of Cancer

Abstract

Molecular prognostic indicators for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), including HPV‐DNA detection, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and p16 expression, have been suggested in the literature, but none of these are currently used in clinical practice. To compare these predictors, 106 newly diagnosed OSCC for the presence of HPV‐DNA and expression of p16 and EGFR were analyzed. The 5‐year disease‐free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated in relation to these markers and a multivariate Cox analysis was performed. Twenty‐eight percent of the cases contained oncogenic HPV‐DNA and 30% were positive for p16. The p16 expression was highly correlated with the presence of HPV‐DNA (p < 0.001). Univariate analysis of the 5‐year DFS revealed a significantly better outcome for patients with p16‐positive tumors (84% vs. 49%, p = 0.009). EGFR‐negative tumors showed a tendency toward a better prognosis in DFS (74% vs. 47%, p = 0.084) and OS (70% vs. 45%, p = 0.100). Remarkable and highly significant was the combination of p16 and EGFR expression status, leading to 5‐year DFS of 93% for p16+/EGFR− tumors vs. 39% for p16−/EGFR+ tumors (p = 0.003) and to a 5‐year OS of 79% vs. 38%, respectively (p = 0.010). In multivariate analysis p16 remained a highly significant prognostic marker for DFS (p = 0.030) showing a 7.5‐fold increased risk for relapse in patients with p16‐negative tumors. Our data indicate that p16 expression is the most reliable prognostic marker for OSCC and further might be a surrogate marker for HPV‐positive OSCC. HPV+/p16+ tumors tended to have decreased EGFR expression, but using both immunohistological markers has significant prognostic implications. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ijc.22355

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 420

Metadata

Authors
Reimers, N., Kasper, H. U., Weissenborn, S. J., Stützer, H., Preuss, S. F., Hoffmann, T. K., Speel, E. J. M., Dienes, H. P., Pfister, H. J., Guntinas‐Lichius, O., & Klussmann, J. P.
Venue
International Journal of Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-02-21
Volume
120
Issue
8
Pages
1731-1738
ISSN
  • 0020-7136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0215
OpenAlex
W1993295950
Cited by
420
References
1
FWCI
26.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Combined analysis of HPV‐DNA, p16 and EGFR expression to predict prognosis in oropharyngeal cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ijc.22355
The paper
Reimers, N., Kasper, H. U., Weissenborn, S. J., Stützer, H., Preuss, S. F., Hoffmann, T. K., Speel, E. J. M., Dienes, H. P., Pfister, H. J., Guntinas‐Lichius, O., & Klussmann, J. P. (2007). Combined analysis of HPV‐DNA, p16 and EGFR expression to predict prognosis in oropharyngeal cancer. International Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.22355

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.