Preliminary Results of a Randomized Study on Therapeutic Gain by Concurrent Chemotherapy for Regionally-Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: NPC-9901 Trial by the Hong Kong Nasopharyngeal Cancer Study Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This randomized study compared the results achieved by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) versus radiotherapy (RT) alone for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) with advanced nodal disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with nonkeratinizing/undifferentiated NPC staged T1-4N2-3M0 were randomized to CRT or RT. Both arms were treated with the same RT technique and dose fractionation. The CRT patients were given cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on days 1, 22, and 43, followed by cisplatin 80 mg/m2 and fluorouracil 1,000 mg/m2/d for 96 hours starting on days 71, 99, and 127. RESULTS: From 1999 to January 2004, 348 eligible patients were randomly assigned; the median follow-up was 2.3 years. The two arms were well-balanced in all prognostic factors and RT parameters. The CRT arm achieved significantly higher failure-free survival (72% v 62% at 3-year, P = .027), mostly as a result of an improvement in locoregional control (92% v 82%, P = .005). However, distant control did not improve significantly (76% v 73%, P = .47), and the overall survival rates were almost identical (78% v 78%, P = .97). In addition, the CRT arm had significantly more acute toxicities (84% v 53%, P < .001) and late toxicities (28% v 13% at 3-year, P = .024). CONCLUSION: Preliminary results confirmed that CRT could significantly improve tumor control, particularly at locoregional sites. However, there was significant increase in the risk of toxicities and no early gain in overall survival. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the ultimate therapeutic ratio.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".