[quote=DonB] is abstract saying HPV+ (p16) had greater rates for secondary primaries (13% vs 11%) and nearly same distant metastases (11.1% vs 13%)?
http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Meetings..._view&confID=74&abstractID=42843[/quote]
HI Don
Just to answer your questions about the incidence of mets and secondary primaries:
It is important to look at the p value (statistical significance) to see if the figures mean anything. You will see it in brackets after the figures you quoted eg (p=0.4). The value needs to be less than 0.01 or 0.05 depending on how stringent the trial is (and where you went to school) to be taken as a real difference.

A value more than 0.05 is described as "not statistically significant".

In English, it means it would not be reasonable to suggest one patient group fared better than the other as the numerical differences are too small (believe it or not) and could be due to chance. This happens when there are genuinely no real differences or when there are not enough patients/events being measured in each group to discern a difference.

The best conclusion that can be drawn in this instance is that there is no difference between the groups, although I suspect in this case it is likely to be that there are just not enough patients to measure any differences. What it definitely does NOT say is that the HPV+ group fare worse in these measures than the HPV- group even though the numbers may appear greater.

Hope this helps and sorry to the statisticians who are right now bouncing up and down in indignation over the superficiality of my explanation

Karen