Outcome of patients treated with cobalt and 6 MV in head and neck cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since 1992, we have been using a 6-MV linear accelerator instead of a cobalt machine. The aim of the study is to evaluate the impact of this on neck control, particularly on postoperative patients in which subcutaneous tissues are at risk. METHOD: A retrospective study including all of 1,452 consecutive patients treated by definitive or postoperative radiotherapy between 1989 and 1997. All stages and subsites of the head/neck were included. Local and neck control were evaluated by the Kaplan Meier method, and comparisons were made between the cobalt and the 6-MV subgroups with a subsequent Cox analysis. For neck control analysis, the postoperative patients were divided in low and high risk (extracapsular extension [ECE], >two nodes, or T4). RESULTS: Radical radiotherapy: A better local control (LC) is observed with 6 MV than with cobalt, but neck control was similar. Postoperative radiotherapy: A better LC is observed with 6 MV. In high-risk patients, the neck control was higher for the cobalt group (79%) vs 60% for the 6-MV group (p = .09 and .03 in a Cox model). CONCLUSION: In postoperative patients at high risk for neck relapse, cobalt seems to give a better neck control. We are currently doing a prospective study in which a bolus is added for half the treatment when patients at high risk for neck relapse are treated with 6 MV.
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".