Treatment of T1b glottic SCC: Laser vs. radiation- a Canadian multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the oncological and functional outcomes of T1b squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the glottic larynx treated with laser in comparison with radiation. DESIGN: A Canadian multicenter cohort study. SETTING: Three tertiary referral centers for head and neck cancer- Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Western University in London, Ontario and the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg. METHODS: Patients with T1b glottic SCC who underwent transoral laser resection or radiation as the primary modality of treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: Oncological outcomes were evaluated using local control, laryngeal preservation, disease free survival and disease specific survival. Voice outcomes were assessed using the Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10). RESULTS: 63 patients met study criteria. 21 were treated with laser and 42 with radiation. Oncologic outcomes at 2 years for laser and radiation demonstrated local control of 95% and 85.9%; laryngeal preservation of 100% and 85.9%; disease free survival of 88.7% and 85.9% and overall survival of 94.1% and 94.8% respectively. VHI-10 data was available for 23/63 patients. During the last follow up visit VHI-10 ranged from 0 to 11 (median 6) in the laser group and 0 to 34 (median 7) in the radiation group. CONCLUSION: T1b SCC of the glottis can be effectively treated with transoral laser microsurgery with oncological outcomes that are at least equivalent to radiation. For patients with VHI scores, voice quality was similar between the two groups. To our knowledge this is the first study directly comparing the oncologic and voice outcomes with laser and radiation for the treatment of glottic cancer involving the anterior commissure.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".