Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Adjuvant Chemotherapy Compared with Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Alone for the Treatment of Locally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Retrospective Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the survival benefit of providing concurrent chemoradiotherapy (ccrt) plus adjuvant chemotherapy compared with ccrt alone to patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. METHODS: This retrospective study included 130 patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated with ccrt plus adjuvant chemotherapy from June 2005 to December 2010. Another 130 patients treated with ccrt alone during the same period were matched on age, sex, World Health Organization histology, T stage, N stage, and technology used for radiotherapy. The endpoints included overall survival, locoregional failure-free survival, distant metastasis failure-free survival, and failure-free survival. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 42.1 months (range: 8-85 months), the observed hazard ratios for the group receiving ccrt plus adjuvant chemotherapy compared with the group receiving ccrt alone were: for overall survival, 0.77 [95% confidence interval (ci): 0.37 to 1.57]; for locoregional failure-free survival, 1.00 (95% ci: 0.37 to 2.71); for distant metastasis failure-free survival, 1.15 (95% ci: 0.56 to 2.37); and for failure-free survival, 1.26 (95% ci: 0.69 to 2.28). There were no significant differences in survival between the groups. After stratification by disease stage, ccrt plus adjuvant chemotherapy provided a borderline significant benefit for patients with N2-3 disease (hazard ratio: 0.35; 95% ci: 0.11 to 1.06; p = 0.052). Multivariate analyses indicated that only tumour stage was a prognostic factor for overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma received no significant survival benefit from the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy to ccrt. However, patients with N2-3 disease might benefit from the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy to ccrt.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".