Prognostic Significance of Cyclooxygenase-2 Overexpression in Glottic Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) overexpression has been associated with a poor prognosis in many cancers. However, the role of COX-2 overexpression in head and neck cancers remains undetermined. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether COX-2 is a prognostic factor in glottic cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This study was part of a phase III placebo-controlled randomized trial evaluating the efficacy of alpha-tocopherol in reducing second primary cancers (SPC) in head and neck cancer patients. Immunohistochemical analyses were conducted on pretreatment biopsies of 301 patients with early-stage glottic cancer treated by radiotherapy. The median value of 50% of positive tumor cells was the cutoff point used to define COX-2 overexpression. Outcomes considered in the statistical analysis were recurrence, SPC, and death. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: The HR associated with COX-2 overexpression was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.55-1.62) for recurrence. The HR associated with SPC was 2.63 (95% CI, 1.32-5.23) for the first 3.5 years of follow-up and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.22-1.32) for the following 3.5 years. The HR associated with COX-2 overexpression was 1.57 (95% CI, 1.01-2.45) for overall mortality. CONCLUSIONS: COX-2 overexpression in glottic cancer was associated with increased overall mortality and an increased risk of SPC during the early follow-up period. Future studies are needed to explain observed effects on SPC. COX-2 expression may prove helpful in defining an individual patient's prognosis.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".