Postoperative chemoradiotherapy for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: A systematic review with meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This systematic review evaluates the use of postoperative chemoradiotherapy for patients with advanced (stage III or IV) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck at a high risk of recurrence. METHODS: The literature was systematically searched for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RESULTS: Of 4 RCTs identified, 3 reported improvements in locoregional control, 3 reported improved disease-free or progression-free survival, and 3 reported improved overall survival with chemoradiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone. Pooling trials confirmed the benefit for chemoradiotherapy in locoregional recurrence (relative risk [RR] = 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.47-0.75; p < .00001) and overall survival (RR = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.71-0.90; p = .0002). More frequent and severe acute mucosal toxicity was reported with combined treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is superior to radiotherapy alone. Because chemoradiotherapy is associated with significantly increased toxicity, further investigations to identify patients most likely to benefit or toxicity reduction strategies are warranted.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".