Choosing a concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy regimen for squamous cell head and neck cancer: A systematic review of the published literature with subgroup analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A systematic review was conducted to develop clinical recommendations for concomitant chemotherapy (CT) and radiotherapy (RT) in patients with locally advanced squamous cell head and neck cancer (SCHNC). METHODS: Results of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were pooled using Meta-analyst(0.988) software. RESULTS: A pooled analysis of 18 RCTs (20 comparisons) involving 3,192 patients detected a reduction in mortality for concomitant therapy compared with RT alone (odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.74; relative risk, 0.83; risk reduction, 11%; p < .00001). Platinum-based regimens involving 1,514 patients from nine trials (10 comparisons) were most effective (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.46-0.71; p < .00001; risk reduction, 12%). Concomitant therapy produced more acute adverse effects than RT alone. CONCLUSION: Platinum-based concomitant CT and RT is superior to conventional RT alone in improving survival in locally advanced SCHNC. Subgroup analyses can be used to help in choosing the most appropriate concomitant regimen.
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 | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".