Recurrent Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma After Salvage Nasopharyngectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the safety and oncological outcome of salvage surgery for local tumor recurrence after previous maxillary swing nasopharyngectomy. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: Between 1998 and 2011, a total of 252 patients who had local tumor recurrence after previous nasopharyngectomy were recruited for the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The locations of the recurrent tumor, operability, and surgical details of resection and reconstruction, as well as the complications and oncological results, were studied. RESULTS: The local recurrence rate after nasopharyngectomy was 13.1%, the risk of which was significantly higher in patients with positive resection margins (39.6% vs 6.9%; P = .006). The chance of the development of local recurrence was significantly lower in patients who had received postoperative chemoradiation therapy than in patients who did not (29.4% vs 64.3%; P = .04). Overall, 63.6% of the patients with local recurrence were amenable to further surgery. Depending on the location of the tumor, remaxillary swing (n = 10), contralateral maxillary swing (n = 8), or central palatal resection (n = 3) was performed. Free-flap coverage of the exposed skull base and the petrosal internal carotid artery was required in 12 patients. There was no evidence of hospital mortality or major complications associated with the surgery. The mean duration of follow-up was 22.4 months, and the overall disease-specific survival in the group of patients who underwent surgery was 80.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical salvage for local tumor recurrence after previous nasopharyngectomy is safe, with a good oncological outcome. In the presence of previous maxillary swing surgery, reswing or contralateral swing operation is feasible, without major complications.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".