A Comparison of Treatment Outcomes by Radiochemotherapy and Postoperative Radiotherapy in Locally Advanced Squamous Cell Carcinomas of Head and Neck
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the treatment outcomes by concomitant radiochemotherapy (CHEMORAD), and by surgery and postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancers. METHOD: A retrospective study included all patients with Stage III and IV (except T1-2 N1) diseases between 1989 and 2002 treated with CHEMORAD (163 patients) or PORT (424 patients) at the L'Hôtel-Dieu de Québec. Chemotherapy was realized with Cisplatin (DDP) 100 mg/m(2), d1, d23, and d45 during radiotherapy or weekly DDP 40 mg/m(2) for 6 weeks in case of patients with poor general condition. Neck dissection was performed if residual disease was diagnosed on CHEMORAD. For the PORT group, 410 patients had neck dissection before adjuvant treatment. RESULTS: The 2-year loco-regional control was 82% for CHEMORAD, and 72% for PORT (P = 0.01). The 2-year disease-free survival was 72% for CHEMORAD, and 64% for PORT (P = 0.02). The results were further confirmed by a Cox proportional hazard model. CONCLUSION: The results indicated that CHEMORAD is a better approach than PORT in the management of locally advanced head and neck cancers. Further randomized study will be needed to compare radical CHEMORAD with surgery plus adjuvant CHEMORAD to determine an appropriate treatment in the management of locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinomas.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".