Comparison of Neoadjuvant Intraarterial Chemotherapy Versus Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Patients With Stage IIIB Uterine Cervical Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term survival of patients with stage IIIB squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix treated with neoadjuvant intraarterial chemotherapy (IA-NAC) versus those treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of 38 patients with stage IIIB squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix admitted between January 1994 and December 1999 who received IA-NAC followed by abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) or radiotherapy (RT). IA-NAC consisted of bilateral infusion via the internal iliac artery of cisplatin, bleomycin and pirarubicin for 2-3 courses. A historical control group of 64 patients who underwent primary CCRT from January 2000 to September 2007 was used for comparison. RESULTS: In the IA-NAC group, 12 patients (31.6%) with operable tumors underwent ARH, and the remaining 26 patients (68.4%) received RT. The response rates were 86.8% (12 complete response + 21 partial response) for IA-NAC and 98.4% (26 complete response + 37 partial response) for CCRT (P = 0.077), respectively. The 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were 62.4 and 44.5% for IA-NAC and 51.1 and 46.9% for CCRT (P = 0.247 and 0.776), respectively. The 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were 75.0 and 58.3% for the patients receiving IA-NAC followed by ARH, and 55.3 and 37.6% for the patients receiving IA-NAC followed by RT (P = 0.368 and 0.262), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, IA-NAC followed by ARH or RT and primary CCRT showed similar survival rates for stage IIIB squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".