MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2177243765 · doi:10.1002/hed.24166

Outcomes after reirradiation for recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma: North American experience

2015· article· en· W2177243765 on OpenAlexaff
Irene Karam, Shao Hui Huang, Andrea McNiven, Jie Su, Wei Xu, John Waldron, Andrew Bayley, John Kim, John Cho, Jolie Ringash, Andrew Hope, Eric X. Chen, Hon Biu Chan, David P. Goldstein, Brian O’Sullivan, Meredith Giuliani

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHyperfractionationNasopharyngeal carcinomaRadiation therapyDose fractionationRetrospective cohort studyToxicityNuclear medicineOncologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this article was to report outcomes of reirradiation for locoregionally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients with locoregionally recurrent NPC who received reirradiation between 2001 and 2012. Overall survival (OS), local control, regional control, distant control, and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grades 3 to 4 late toxicity were examined. RESULTS: A total of 42 recurrent cases treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT; 27 patients) or non-IMRT (stereotactic radiotherapy [RT], 12 patients; 3D conformal RT, 3 patients) were identified. Median time from initial RT to recurrence was 4.6 years. Hyperfractionation with 1.1 to 1.4 Gy/fraction twice daily to a total of 40 to 60 Gy was used in 27 IMRT and 5 non-IMRT patients. The remaining 10 patients received conventional fractionation 1.8 to 2.0 Gy/fraction to 50 to 60 Gy. Median follow-up was 3.0 years. The 3-year OS, local control, regional control, distant control, and late toxicity rates were 49%, 46%, 71%, 79%, and 37%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Reirradiation for recurrent NPC, delivered mostly with hyperfractionated IMRT, can result in durable disease control with acceptable late toxicity. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: E1102-E1109, 2016.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207