Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with Carboplatin/5-Fluorouracil in Head and Neck Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a prospective, randomized, multicenter study, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) with carboplatin and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) followed by locoregional treatment (LRT) was compared with locoregional treatment alone in the treatment of patients with head and neck cancer. This study, which includes 324 patients, was conducted from January 1988 to July 1991. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the carboplatin/5-FU regimen both on the incidence of mutilating surgery and on the survival rate. Chemotherapy consisted of three cycles of carboplatin 400 mg/m2 day 1 and 5-FU 1 g/m2 days 1-5, repeated every 3 weeks. Patients with a complete tumor response then received radiotherapy alone, instead of the treatment planned initially. Three hundred patients were analyzed: 79 had tumors of the oral cavity, 106 oropharyngeal tumors, and 115 pharyngolaryngeal tumors. One hundred fifty patients underwent CT+LRT; 150 patients had LRT alone. Grade 3 and 4 toxicity rates were minimal in the CT+LRT group; toxicity was mainly hematologic (24% neutropenia, 19% thrombocytopenia). There were 3 toxic deaths (2%), 2 due to septicemia and 1 due to cardiac toxicity. One hundred forty-three patients were evaluable for efficacy. The tumor objective response rate was 63% and complete response rate was 31% (35% for oropharyngeal, 34% for pharyngolaryngeal tumors, 22.5% for oral cavity tumors), which led to a 29% decrease in the rate of mutilating surgery. Conservative treatment was performed in 57% of patients in the CT+LRT group vs. 24% in the LRT group (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between survival curves in the CT+LRT and LRT groups. At 4 years, overall survival rates were 56 and 46%; disease-free survival rates were 33 and 30% in the CT+LRT and the LRT groups, respectively. The survival rates were not significantly different in the two groups. The locoregional recurrence rates were 35% in the CT+LRT arm and 25% in the LRT arm (p = 0.04), with median follow-up of 25 months. The rates of secondary localization and distant metastasis were not significantly different in the two groups.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".