Oncologic and Functional Outcomes of Partial Laryngeal Surgery for Intermediate‐Stage Laryngeal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the oncologic and functional outcomes of partial laryngeal surgery (PLS) using transoral laser microsurgery (TLM) and supracricoid laryngectomy (SCL) in patients with intermediate-stage laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC). STUDY DESIGN: Historical cohort study. SETTING: Single tertiary care center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of oncologic and functional outcomes in intermediate-stage (T2-3/N0-1, stage II and III) LSCC patients who underwent TLM or SCL from 1998 to 2010. RESULTS: Sixty patients were included, of whom 28 (47%) underwent TLM and 32 (53%) underwent SCL. For the entire cohort, 2- and 5-year probabilities were 86.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73.0%-93.2%) and 72.9% (95% CI, 52.4%-85.6%), respectively, for overall survival (OS) and 79.3% (95% CI, 65.6%-88.0%) and 62.4% (95% CI, 41.9%-77.4%), respectively, for recurrence-free survival (RFS). There was no difference between the TLM and SCL cohorts in OS (P = .542) or RFS (P = .483). More than 75% of patients avoided adjuvant therapy. Communication Scale and Functional Outcome Swallowing Scale scores at median follow-up of 33 months were 2 or better in 97% and 91% of patients, respectively, reflecting functional voice and swallowing postoperatively. Eighty-eight percent of patients retained a functional larynx. CONCLUSION: PLS provides excellent oncologic and functional outcomes for intermediate-stage LSCC and should be considered an alternative to chemoradiation or total laryngectomy in selected patients.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".