High tumor interstitial fluid pressure identifies cervical cancer patients with improved survival from radiotherapy plus cisplatin versus radiotherapy alone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiotherapy (RT) with concurrent cisplatin (CRT) is standard treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer. However, not all patients benefit from the addition of cisplatin to RT alone. This study explored the value of pretreatment tumor interstitial fluid pressure (IFP) and hypoxia measurements as predictors of cisplatin response in 291 patients who were treated with RT (1994-1998) or RT plus concurrent cisplatin (1999-2009). Clinical characteristics were similar between the two groups, apart from a greater proportion of patients with pelvic lymph node metastases and hypoxic tumors in the CRT cohort. Patients were followed for a median duration of 5.6 years. Information about recurrence and survival was recorded prospectively. The addition of cisplatin to RT improved survival compared to treatment with RT alone (HR 0.61, p = 0.0097). This improvement was confined to patients with high-IFP tumors at diagnosis (HR 0.40, p = 0.00091). There was no benefit of adding cisplatin in those with low-IFP tumors (HR 1.05, p = 0.87). There was no difference in the effectiveness of cisplatin in patients with more or less hypoxic tumors. In conclusion, patients with locally advanced cervical cancer and high tumor IFP at diagnosis have greater benefit from the addition of cisplatin to RT than those with low IFP. This may reflect high tumor cell proliferation, which is known to influence IFP, local tumor control and patient survival.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".