Dose Delivery Analysis of Weekly Versus 3-Weekly Cisplatin Concurrent With Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma (NPC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the dose delivery and toxicity of weekly cisplatin versus high-dose cisplatin given every 3 weeks in a tertiary oncology clinic. METHODS: From January 2000 to July 2009, patients with biopsy-proven nasopharyngeal carcinoma receiving concurrent cisplatin with curative-intent radiation therapy (RT) were included. Before 2005, most patients received cisplatin (Q3) (100 mg/m intravenously days 1, 22, and 43 of RT) and 3-dimensional conformal RT (66 Gy, 33 fractions). After 2005, most patients received weekly cisplatin (Q1) (40 mg/m intravenously weekly for 7 wk of RT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (70 Gy, 35 fractions). RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were analyzed: 45 for Q1 and 28 for Q3. Cumulative doses ≥200 mg/m were achieved in 80% of Q1 and 86% of Q3 patients, respectively. Dose reduction due to toxicity was required in 2/45 (4%) of Q1 patients compared with 11/28 (39%) of Q3 patients (P=0.0003). Toxicities in Q1 and Q3 patients included: hospitalization for acute toxicity in 20% and 35.7%; mean weight loss 10.85% and 8.75%; percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement in 25.6% and 29.6%; and grade 3 dehydration in 11.1% and 17.9%, respectively. Median follow-up time was 3 years for Q1 and 6 years for Q3 patients. Median disease-free survival was 46 months for the Q1 group and 53 months for the Q3 group (P=0.667). There was no difference in overall survival between Q1 and Q3. CONCLUSIONS: In this series, weekly 40 mg/m cisplatin and 3-weekly 100 mg/m cisplatin showed similar deliverability, toxicity profiles, and outcomes. At our center, weekly cisplatin is standard of care for patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma undergoing chemoradiotherapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".