Endoscopic Treatment of Cis-T2 Glottic Cancer with a CO2 Laser: Preliminary Results from a Canadian Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, endoscopic resection using a CO(2) laser has been generally ignored as a treatment option. In this article, we present an introductory analysis of our clinical experience with the CO(2) laser at the QEII Health Sciences Centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Outcomes from a cohort of 36 patients with glottic cancer staged as Cis-T2 (7 Cis, 17 T1, 12 T2) who underwent endoscopic resection using a CO(2) laser between January 2002 and June 2005 were studied retrospectively. The mean follow-up was 16.2 months (range 0-41 months). At the time of the study, no patient had died of laryngeal disease, one patient had died of another disease, and one patient was lost to follow-up. There had been three recurrences in the cohort: two local recurrences and one recurrence in a regional lymph node. After salvage, all patients with recurrences were disease free at the time of the study. There were three postoperative complications in the cohort: one postoperative myocardial infarction, one case of respiratory distress postextubation, and one case of subcutaneous emphysema. The average time for the procedure was 0.97 hours (range 0.25-2.75 hours). The average postoperative length of stay was 1.2 days (range 0-12 days). Of 35 cases with follow-up, 60% had no reported problems with voice in their last visit and 11% reported consistent hoarseness or weakness. Although our oncologic results do require more follow-up, based on our positive experience thus far, we believe that endoscopic management of glottic cancer is a treatment option that may be underused in the Canadian health care system.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".