Radiotherapy versus Surgery for Early T1–t2 Glottic Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare surgery and radiotherapy as treatments for early T1-T2 glottic cancer in terms of local and regional control, complications, cost, and voice outcome. METHODS: Retrospective comparative review of 36 patients with T1 or T2 glottic carcinoma diagnosed between 1992 and 2003 at the McGill University Health Centre. Twelve patients postsurgery (group 1) and 26 patients postradiotherapy (group 2) were compared in terms of local and regional control and complications related to treatment. The costs of surgery and radiotherapy, including all personnel and equipment, were estimated. A cross-sectional study was undertaken of 11 patients with a history of T1 or T2 glottic carcinoma: 5 patients postsurgery, 4 patients postradiotherapy, and 2 patients postradiotherapy and surgery. Vocal fold function and voice quality were assessed by an otolaryngologist using videostroboscopy and a standardized questionnaire (Voice Handicap Index) and by an experienced speech-language pathologist using the Visipitch II computer program (Kay Elemetrics Corp., Lincoln Park, NJ). RESULTS: Retrospective study: The recurrence rate following primary treatment was 37.5% for group 1 and 22% for group 2. Group 1 patients presented with 25% of local complications (vocal fold scars) and no systemic complications. Patients in group 2 presented with local and systemic complications: 35% for local and 27% for systemic. One patient had mild carotid stenosis, and one patient had mild esophageal stenosis. The cost of treatment with radiotherapy was five times higher than the cost of surgery. Cross-sectional study: Vocal fold function assessed by videostroboscopy was superior in group 2. However, patients in group 1 scored higher on the subjective (Voice Handicap Index questionnaire) and objective (Visipitch parameters) voice assessments. CONCLUSION: Surgery and radiotherapy are both very effective in terms of local and regional control for early glottic carcinoma. However, surgery tends to be more cost-effective, with less complications and possibly a better voice outcome.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".