Salvage Resection for Isolated Local and/or Regional Failure of Head/Neck Cancer Following Definitive Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Case Series and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary management of advanced head/neck cancers involves concurrent chemoradiotherapy . Subsequently, regional and local failures are managed with resection but there have been few reports that describe the morbidity and disease control outcomes of surgical salvage in this setting. METHODS: Retrospective analysis describes complications, survival, and patterns of failure after salvage resection of isolated local and/or regional failures of head/neck cancer following definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were identified for inclusion: laryngectomy in 11 patients, oral cavity/oropharynx resection in 2 patients, and neck dissection alone in 4 patients. Ten patients required graft tissue reconstruction (6 pedicle and 4 free flap). Median post-operative hospitalization was 7 days (range 3-19), and 4 patients required hospital re-admission. At a median survivor follow-up of 15.8 months (range 4.3-34.9), 10 patients were alive (6 without evidence of disease). Seven patients experienced disease recurrence at a median 6.7 months (range 0-12.6) following salvage resection (2 with isolated distant failures). Estimated 2-year local/regional control, freedom from failure, and overall survival were 58%, 39%, and 58%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical salvage after primary definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy is feasible with toxicity and outcomes similar to prior radiotherapy alone or sequential chemotherapy and radiation. Local andregional recurrence remains the predominant pattern of failure.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".