Small-Cell Carcinoma of the Cervix: Fourteen Years of Experience at a Single Institution Using a Combined-Modality Regimen of Involved-Field Irradiation and Platinum-Based Combination Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy and toxicity of a combined-modality regimen of irradiation with platinum-based combination chemotherapy in small-cell carcinoma of the cervix (SCCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients with SCCC were seen and treated at the British Columbia Cancer Agency between May 1988 and November 2002. Two protocols were used, SMCC (May 1988 to December 1995) and SMCC2 (January 1996 to November 2002). Both protocols used cisplatin, etoposide, and involved-field irradiation (essentially pelvis plus or minus para-aortics) with concurrent chemotherapy. In addition, SMCC2 included carboplatin and paclitaxel, and the para-aortics were irradiated routinely. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients received either SMCC (n = 17) or SMCC2 (n = 14), and three patients did not (disease too extensive, n = 1; patient refusal, n = 1; and alternative regimen, n = 1). For the 31 patients treated on one of the protocols, the 3-year overall and failure-free survival (FFS) rates were 60% and 57%, respectively. The results were equivalent for SMCC and SMCC2. Radiologic stage was the only independent predictor for FFS (80% at 3 years for stage I and II patients v 38% at 3 years for stage III and IV patients). Distant failure (28%) was the most common cause of failure, with local failure occurring in 13% of patients. The switch to SMCC2 did not improve efficacy but did lessen the toxicity. CONCLUSION: SCCC can be successfully treated in approximately 55% of patients with a combination of irradiation and platinum-based chemotherapy. Disease extent predicts for chance of curability.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".