Is the Neoadjuvant Docetaxel, Cisplatin and 5-Fluorouracil Regimen Superior to Classic Cisplatin and 5-Fluorouracil for Locoregionally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: We retrospectively compared the toxicity and efficacy of two neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens (docetaxel+cisplatin+5-fluorouracil vs. cisplatin+5-fluorouracil) followed by chemoradiotherapy for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Patients and Materials: We analysed 135 patients with stage III and IVA-B nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Forty-four patients were treated with docetaxel+cisplatin+5-fluorouracil and chemoradiotherapy (TPF group), and 91 were treated with cisplatin+5-fluorouracil and chemoradiotherapy (PF group). Chemoradiotherapy was administered with weekly cisplatin. Radical radiotherapy with total doses of 70-74Gy was administered using a conventional technique, over 7 weeks in 2.0Gy/fraction; boost doses of 6-10Gy were administered in 55.6% patients (n=75) with locally advanced cancer. Results: The median follow-up was 46.5 months (range, 9.8-62.8 months), and the follow-up rate was 95%. The TPF group had better 5-year estimated progression-free survival (77.0% vs. 73.5%; P = 0.510) and overall survival than the PF group (80.7% vs. 77.9%, P = 0.446); however, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups. Toxicities in the two groups were similar; grade 3/4 oral mucositis was more common in the TPF group (27.3%) than in the PF group (15.3%) during chemoradiotherapy. Conclusions: The neoadjuvant docetaxel+cisplatin+5-fluorouracil chemotherapy led to satisfactory long-term survival and slight improvement in progression-free survival and overall survival as compared with the classic cisplatin+5-fluorouracil regimen; toxicity was tolerable. However, prospective trials are needed to prove whether docetaxel+cisplatin+5-fluorouracil is a substitute for cisplatin+5-fluorouracil.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".