Metastatic carcinoma to the cervical nodes from an unknown head and neck primary site: Is there a need for neck dissection?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate the outcomes and patterns of failure in patients with metastatic carcinoma to cervical lymph nodes from an unknown head and neck primary origin, who were treated curatively with radiotherapy, with or without neck dissection. METHODS: The study included 61 patients referred to the McGill University Hospital Centers from 1987 to 2002. The median age was 57 years, with male to female ratio of 4:1. Distribution of patients by N status was as follows: N1, 16 patients (26%); N2a, 18 (30%); N2b, 13 (22%); N2c, 7 (11%); and N3, 7 (11%). Twenty patients underwent neck dissection (11 radical, 9 functional) and 41 patients had biopsy (9 fine-needle aspiration and 32 excisional biopsy). All patients received radiotherapy. The median dose to the involved node(s) was 64 Gy, and 60 Gy to the rest of the neck. Treatment of the neck was bilateral in 50 patients (82%) and ipsilateral in 11 (18%). The minimum duration of the follow-up was 12 months, with the median of 32 months. RESULTS: The 5- and 8-year overall survival for the whole population was 79% and 67%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the 8-year actuarial overall survival (64.8% and 67.6%, respectively, p = .64) and local relapse-free survival (75% vs 74.5%, respectively, p = .57), among patients who had biopsy versus those who had neck dissection. CONCLUSION: In our experience, definitive radiotherapy to the neck and the potential mucosal sites, whether preceded by neck dissection or not, is effective to achieve a good local control rate in the unknown primary cancer of the head and neck. The indication for neck dissection, in particular for early nodal stage, is controversial.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".