Partial vs Whole Laryngeal Radiotherapy for Clinical Stage T1-2N0M0/Tis Laryngeal Carcinoma
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: The current standard treatment for clinical tumor stage 1 to 2 or in situ laryngeal carcinoma without node involvement or metastases (T1-2N0M0/Tis) is whole laryngeal radiotherapy (WLRT), whereas microsurgery typically resects only the tumor-involving vocal cord with a narrow margin. Clinical outcomes of partial laryngeal radiotherapy (PLRT) have not been quantified. Objective: To compare the effectiveness and toxic effects of PLRT vs WLRT in patients with clinical stage T1-2N0/Tis laryngeal carcinoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a single-institution retrospective cohort study of patients with clinical stage T1-2N0M0/Tis squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx who underwent intensity-modulated RT from January 2013 to December 2024. Data were analyzed from January to February 2025. Main Outcomes and Measures: Long-term locoregional control, laryngectomy-free survival, distant metastasis, and overall toxic effects. Acute and late radiation toxic effects were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Patient-reported swallowing-related quality of life (MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory) was collected at each visit when feasible. Results: The analyses included 233 consecutive patients with T1-2N0M0/Tis squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx who were treated with intensity modulated radiotherapy (176 with WLRT vs 57 with PLRT). The median (IQR) follow-up in the WLRT group was 60 (28-87) months, and in the PLRT group, 31 (16-64) months. The largest tumor stage-related difference in WLRT was observed in T1b (100%) and Tis (50%) disease, with an absolute difference of 50% (95% CI, 25.4% to 73.2%). There were no important clinical differences between PLRT and WLRT in 3-year locoregional control rates (85.4% vs 90.8%; rate difference, -5.4%; 95% CI, -13.5% to 6.9%), laryngectomy-free survival (93.2% vs 94%; rate difference, -0.8%; 95% CI, -9.1% to 7.5%), distant metastasis-free survival (100% vs 97.6%; rate difference, 2.4%; 95% CI, -0.3% to 4.9%), and overall survival (91.4% vs 88.9%; rate difference, 2.5%; 95% CI, -6.8% to 12.8%). There was no contralateral vocal-fold failure in the PLRT group. There was a large difference in the 3-year locoregional control in T2 tumors between the WLRT (85.1%) and PLRT groups (66.7%), with a difference of 18.4% (95% CI, -5.8% to 21.3%). The incidence of acute dysphagia was lower in the PLRT than in the WLRT group (73.7% vs 92.6%; difference, 18.9%; 95% CI, 6.9% to 30.9%). Median composite scores on the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory at 3 and 6 months postradiotherapy were higher in the PLRT group (86 vs 77; difference, 8; 95% CI, 2 to 14; and 96 vs 81; difference, 4; 95% CI, -2 to 8; respectively), although the observed differences may not be clinically important. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that there were no clinically important differences observed in locoregional control between PLRT and WLRT; however, PLRT may be associated with lower rates of acute toxic effects compared to WLRT. Wide confidence intervals across all end points indicated substantial uncertainty regarding comparative effectiveness. The shorter median follow-up time in the PLRT group limited evaluation of late toxic effects and long-term tumor control outcomes; together with the lack of adjustment for confounding factors, this study underscores the need for further evaluation of PLRT.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».