MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083899124 · doi:10.1200/jco.2003.10.106

Management and Outcome Differences in Supraglottic Cancer Between Ontario, Canada, and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Areas of the United States

2003· article· en· W2083899124 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patti A. Groome, Brian O’Sullivan, Jonathan C. Irish, Deanna M. Rothwell, Karleen Schulze, Padraig Warde, Ken M. Schneider, Robert G. MacKenzie, D. Ian Hodson, J. Alex Hammond, Sunil Gulavita, Libni Eapen, Peter F. Dixon, Randy J. Bissett, William J. Mackillop

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurveillance, Epidemiology, and End ResultsEpidemiologyStage (stratigraphy)Cancer registryCancerRelative survivalLaryngectomyInternal medicineSurgeryDemographyLarynx

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: We compared the management and outcome of supraglottic cancer in Ontario, Canada, with that in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program areas in the United States. METHODS: Electronic, clinical, and hospital data were linked to cancer registry data and supplemented by chart review where necessary. Stage-stratified analyses compared initial treatment and survival in the SEER areas (n = 1,643) with a random sample from Ontario (n = 265). We also compared laryngectomy rates at 3 years in those patients 65 years and older at diagnosis. RESULTS: Radical surgery was more commonly used in SEER, with absolute differences increasing with increasing stage: I/II, 17%; III, 36%; and IV, 45%. The 5-year survival rates were 74% in Ontario and 56% in SEER for stage I/II disease (P =.01), 55.7% in Ontario and 46.8% in SEER for stage III disease (P =.40), and 28.5% in Ontario and 29.1% in SEER for stage IV disease (P =.28). Cancer-specific survival results mirrored the overall survival results with the exception of stage IV disease, for which 34.6% of Ontario patients survived their cancer compared with 38.1% in SEER (P =.10). This stage IV difference was more pronounced when we further controlled for possible cause of death errors by restricting the comparison to patients with a single primary cancer (P =.01). Three-year actuarial laryngectomy rates differed. In stage I/II, these rates were 3% in Ontario compared with 35% in SEER (P < 10(-3)). In stage III disease, the rates were 30% and 54%, respectively (P =.03), and in stage IV disease they were 33% and 64% (P =.002). CONCLUSION: There are large differences in the management of supraglottic cancer between the SEER areas of the United States and Ontario. Long-term larynx retention was higher in Ontario, where radiotherapy is widely regarded as the treatment of choice and surgery is reserved for salvage. In stages I to III, survival was similar in the two regions despite the differences in treatment policy. In stage IV, there may be a small survival advantage in the U.S. SEER areas related to the higher use of primary surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.172
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations112
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207