Docetaxel/cisplatin as first‐line chemotherapy in patients with head and neck carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this Phase II study was to assess the clinical activity and toxicity of docetaxel (D) and cisplatin (P) in patients with locally advanced unresectable, metastatic, or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). PATIENTS: Of 34 patients, 30 were eligible for treatment with D 80 mg/m(2) on Day 1 and P 70 mg/m(2) on Day 2. Therapy was repeated every 3 weeks. At the start of chemotherapy, the tumors had the following extensions: locoregional, n = 15; distant metastatic, n = 2; and relapse, n = 13. RESULTS: Overall, the rate of objective responses in the population of all eligible patients based on an intention-to-treat analysis was 53%, with a 95% confidence interval (CI; 34.33-71.66%). Two patients had complete disease remission (pathologic), 4 patients had complete disease remission (clinical), 10 patients had partial disease remission, 3 patients had no change in disease status, and 7 patients had disease progression. The duration of objective response was median 5+ months (range 3-8+ months). Eleven patients (37%) had Grade 4 granulocytopenia and three patients (10%) had Grade 3 granulocytopenia (grades were based on the classification of the National Cancer Institute of Canada-Common Toxicity Criteria). Six patients died of septicemia. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the combination of D and P represents a highly active chemotherapeutic regimen for the treatment of patients with SCCHN. However, because of the high toxicity of this regimen, prophylactic administration of antibiotics and hematopoietic growth factors is essential as is a three-day corticosteroid premedication regimen. Above all, this combination of drugs is not recommended for treatment of patients with a World Health Organization performance status of >1.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".