Role of primary surgery in the treatment of advanced oropharyngeal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare survival outcomes of patients with advanced stage oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) according to surgical and nonsurgical treatments, when stratified by smoking and p16 status. METHODS: We conducted a prospective longitudinal population-based study of 279 patients diagnosed with advanced oropharyngeal SCC. Patients were stratified by smoking and p16 status. RESULTS: There was no significant disease-specific survival (DSS) difference in combined modality treatment groups in nonsmokers that had p16-positive cancers, however, in smokers with p16-positive cancers, the DSS surgery + postoperative chemoradiotherapy (S+CRT) was significantly higher than chemoradiotherapy (CRT) alone. Patients who had p16-negative cancers had the highest DSS when treated with surgery + adjuvant therapy (S+RT)/CRT. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that increasing Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score, smoking, p16 status, higher stage, and treatment with surgery protocols were significant determinants of survival. CONCLUSION: Primary surgical approaches offer the best survival outcomes in smokers with p16-positive cancers and in patients with p16-negative cancers. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: E-E, 2016.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".