Results of Treatment of Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Maxillary Sinus: A 26-Year Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Five-year survival in squamous cell carcinoma of maxillary antrum is low. This article examines the results of various approaches to treatment as given in our hospital in past 26 years. METHODS: From 1979 to 2005, 379 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of maxillary antrum managed with curative intent were studied. Twenty-eight patients had T2, 237 patients had T3, and 114 had T4 tumors. The N classification was N0 in 316 patients, N1 in 21 patients, N2a in 28 patients and N2b in 14 patients. Treatment to the primary site comprised of surgery (Sx) and radiation therapy (RT) in 284 patients, RT alone in 57 patients and chemotherapy (CTx) with radiotherapy in 38 patients. RESULTS: There was a difference in survival between patients who underwent Sx with RT compared with patients who received RT alone or CTx with RT. The most common pattern of recurrence was in the primary site, 187 (49.3%) patients. Local control at 3 and 5 years was 71% and 63.8% respectively in Sx with RT, 31.6% and 28% respectively in RT, and 28.9% and 26% in CTx with RT group. CONCLUSIONS: The type of treatment to the primary site is an important determinant of survival and local control. Surgery with radiation is a better treatment option.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".