Cytologic Evaluation of Surgical Irrigation Fluid Following Resection of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Historically, squamous cells exfoliated from head and neck carcinoma resection have been implicated in locoregional recurrence, but there have been few studies demonstrating the presence of these cells. This study was designed to evaluate the presence of exfoliated malignant cells in surgical irrigation fluid collected during head and neck cancer resection. METHODS: Thirty patients undergoing surgery for biopsy-proven squamous cell carcinoma had their surgical sites irrigated with 1,000 cc of normal saline. Surgical gloves and instruments were also washed. These samples were prepared and stained using standard squamous cell cytologic stains. All cases were reviewed by one cytopathologist. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (60%) had positive or suspicious cytology detected in at least one of the surgical samples. In patients with T0 and T1 tumours, all surgical samples were negative. Positive or suspicious cytology was detected in the primary site and glove and instrument irrigation in 40% of patients with T2 tumours, 42% of patients with T3 tumours, and 50% of patients with T4 tumours. This was statistically significant (p < .05). Positive or suspicious cytology was detected in the neck and glove and instrument irrigation in 29% of patients with an N0 neck, 31% of patients with an N1 neck, 39% of patients with an N2 neck, and 100% of patients with an N3 neck. Five of seven patients (71%) with previous radiation therapy had positive or suspicious cytology in at least one of the surgical samples. CONCLUSIONS: Higher tumour and nodal staging and a previous history of radiation therapy are associated with an increased incidence of positive or suspicious cytology in surgical irrigation fluid. These findings have implications for surgical protocols.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".