Randomized Trial of Antioxidant Vitamins to Prevent Acute Adverse Effects of Radiation Therapy in Head and Neck Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many cancer patients take antioxidant vitamin supplements with the hope of improving the outcome of conventional therapies and of reducing the adverse effects of these treatments. A randomized trial was conducted to determine whether supplementation with antioxidant vitamins could reduce the occurrence and severity of acute adverse effects of radiation therapy and improve quality of life without compromising treatment efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial among 540 head and neck cancer patients treated with radiation therapy. Patients were randomly assigned into two arms. The supplementation with alpha-tocopherol (400 IU/d) and beta-carotene (30 mg/d) or placebos was administered during radiation therapy and for 3 years thereafter. During the course of the trial, supplementation with beta-carotene was discontinued because of ethical concerns. RESULTS: Patients randomly assigned in the supplement arm tended to have less severe acute adverse effects during radiation therapy (odds ratio [OR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.02). The reduction was statistically significant when the supplementation combined alpha-tocopherol and beta-carotene for adverse effects to the larynx (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.71) and overall at any site (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.74). Quality of life was not improved by the supplementation. The rate of local recurrence of the head and neck tumor tended to be higher in the supplement arm of the trial (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.93 to 2.02). CONCLUSION: Supplementation with high doses of alpha-tocopherol and beta-carotene during radiation therapy could reduce the severity of treatment adverse effects. However, this trial suggests that use of high doses of antioxidants as adjuvant therapy might compromise radiation treatment efficacy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".