Neck metastases in oropharyngeal cancer: Necessity and extent of bilateral treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bilateral neck treatment in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) is controversial. This study determined the rate of bilateral neck metastases in OPSCC and formulated a neck treatment algorithrm for OPSCC. METHODS: In all, 212 consecutive patients with OPSCC underwent ipsilateral level I-V and contralateral I-III or I-V neck dissections. Pathology results were used to identify factors predicting bilateral neck metastases. RESULTS: A total of 171 patients (81%) had ipsilateral and 41 patients (24%) bilateral neck metastases. Multivariate logistic regression found cT4 and ≥cN2a significantly associated with contralateral neck metastases (p < .05). However, tumor site was not predictive (p > .05). High-risk pathology features predicted contralateral neck disease (p < .05). cN0 and cN1 necks were unlikely to harbor disease in level V (<5%). Both 2- and 5-year contralateral neck recurrence rates were 1% and 2%. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral neck disease in OPSCC is more common than once thought. Patients with OPSCC with cT4 or cN2a+ would benefit from bilateral neck treatment. Posttreatment high-risk features should guide treatment escalation.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".