Role of Endolaryngeal Surgery (with or without Laser) Compared with Radiotherapy in the Management of Early (T1) Glottic Cancer: A Clinical Practice Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To provide evidence-based practice guideline recommendations concerning the role of endolaryngeal surgery (with or without laser) compared with radiation therapy for patients with early (T1) glottic cancer, assessing survival, locoregional control, laryngeal preservation rates, and voice outcomes. METHODS: The medline, embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify relevant studies from 1996 to 2011. Recommendations were formulated based on that evidence and on the expert opinion of Cancer Care Ontario's Head and Neck Cancer disease site group. The systematic review and practice guideline were externally reviewed by practitioners in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: The available evidence was of a level insufficient to demonstrate a clear difference between treatment options when considering the likelihood of local control or overall survival. Although the evidence was mainly retrospective, there was a suggestion that, compared with surgery, radiotherapy might be associated with less measureable perturbation of voice without a significant difference in patient perception. The likelihood of laryngeal preservation may be higher when surgery can be offered as initial treatment. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with early (T1) glottic cancer, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate a difference between endolaryngeal surgery (with or without laser) and external-beam radiation therapy. The choice between treatment modalities has been based on patient and clinician preferences and general medical condition.
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 | 0.001 | 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".