Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 250

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

Institutional Clinical Trial Accrual Volume and Survival of Patients With Head and Neck Cancer

Open access
Wuthrick, Evan J., Zhang, Qiang, Machtay, Mitchell, Rosenthal, David I., Nguyen-Tan, Phuc Felix, Fortin, André, Silverman, Craig L., Raben, Adam, Kim, Harold E., Horwitz, Eric M., Read, Nancy E., Harris, Jonathan, Wu, Qian, Le, Quynh-Thu, Gillison, Maura L.·2015·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) receive treatment at centers with expertise, but whether provider experience affects survival is unknown. Patients and Methods: The effect of institutional experience on overall survival (OS) in patients with stage III or IV HNC was investigated within a randomized trial of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG 0129), which compared cisplatin concurrent with standard versus accelerated fractionation radiotherapy. As a surrogate for experience, institutions were classified as historically low- (HLACs) or high-accruing centers (HHACs) based on accrual to 21 RTOG HNC trials (1997 to 2002). The effect of accrual volume on OS was estimated by Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Median RTOG accrual (1997 to 2002) at HLACs was four versus 65 patients at HHACs. Analysis included 471 patients in RTOG 0129 (2002 to 2005) with known human papillomavirus and smoking status. Patients at HLACs versus HHACs had better performance status (0: 62% v 52%; P = .04) and lower T stage (T4: 26.5% v 35.3%; P = .002) but were otherwise similar. Radiotherapy protocol deviations were higher at HLACs versus HHACs (18% v 6%; P < .001). When compared with HHACs, patients at HLACs had worse OS (5 years: 51.0% v 69.1%; P = .002). Treatment at HLACs was associated with increased death risk of 91% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.65) after adjustment for prognostic factors and 72% (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.23 to 2.40) after radiotherapy compliance adjustment. Conclusion: OS is worse for patients with HNC treated at HLACs versus HHACs to cooperative group trials after accounting for radiotherapy protocol deviations. Institutional experience substantially influences survival in locally advanced HNC.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2014.56.5218

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 250

Metadata

Authors
Wuthrick, E. J., Zhang, Q., Machtay, M., Rosenthal, D. I., Nguyen-Tan, P. F., Fortin, A., Silverman, C. L., Raben, A., Kim, H. E., Horwitz, E. M., Read, N. E., Harris, J., Wu, Q., Le, Q.-T., & Gillison, M. L.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2015-01-10
Volume
33
Issue
2
Pages
156-164
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2154083484
Cited by
250
References
1
FWCI
18.18
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: Institutional Clinical Trial Accrual Volume and Survival of Patients With Head and Neck Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2014.56.5218
The paper
Wuthrick, E. J., Zhang, Q., Machtay, M., Rosenthal, D. I., Nguyen-Tan, P. F., Fortin, A., Silverman, C. L., Raben, A., Kim, H. E., Horwitz, E. M., Read, N. E., Harris, J., Wu, Q., Le, Q.-T., & Gillison, M. L. (2015). Institutional Clinical Trial Accrual Volume and Survival of Patients With Head and Neck Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2014.56.5218

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.