Patterns of Distant Failure and Second Primary Cancers in Patients with Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Implications for Surveillance Methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We analyzed the pattern of distant metastasis (DM) and secondary primary cancers (SPC) in patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) to develop surveillance guidelines. Methods: A retrospective review of 177 patients with OPSCC treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy ± chemotherapy between 2002 and 2012 was performed to characterize the rate, pattern, and timing of DM and SPC. Results: Sixteen patients (9.0%) developed DM and 9 patients (5.1%) developed a SPC. Overall, 24/177 patients (13.6%) developed a DM and/or SPC for a total of 27 events. 92.6% (25/27) of events were detectable on physical exam and/or chest CT. p16+ patients developed DM later than p16- tumors (23.4 months versus 8.7 months). Conclusions: Chest CT with physical examination detects the majority of DM and SPC in patients with OPSCC and would provide effective surveillance in these patients. A risk adapted surveillance strategy is proposed.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".