MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Higher dose per fraction and shorter overall treatment time using intensity-modulated radiation therapy versus conventional radiation therapy with concurrent carboplatin and 5-fluorouracil for locally advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma: A comparison of toxicity and efficacy

2009· article· en· W2225455784 on OpenAlexaff
S. Clavel, David H. Nguyen, Philippe Després, B. Fortin, Geneviève Coulombe, David Donath, Denis Soulières, Danielle Charpentier, L. Guertin, P.F. Nguyen-Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCarboplatinRadiation therapyConcomitantFluorouracilNuclear medicineStage (stratigraphy)Dose fractionationChemotherapyInternal medicineSurgeryUrologyCisplatin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6038 Background: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare toxicity and efficacy of two different radiotherapy regimens, the first one using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to that of conventional radiotherapy (CRT) in patients treated with concomitant chemotherapy for locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer. Methods: Between January 2000 and December 2007, 249 patients with stage III-IV squamous cell oropharyngeal carcinoma were treated at our institution with definitive concurrent chemoradiation using carboplatin 70 mg/m2/day for four days and 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m2/day as a continuous infusion every 3 weeks. One hundred patients had 70 Gy in 33 fractions using IMRT (2.12 Gy per day) and 149 received CRT at 70 gy in 35 fractions (2 Gy per day), both administered five times a week. Toxicities were compared using Fisher's exact test. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and locoregional control (LRC) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Results: Median follow-up was 33 months. Three year actuarial rates for OS, DFS, and LRC were 95.4 vs. 75.8% (p < 0.001), 89.3 vs. 71.6% (p < 0.001), and 92.4 vs. 85.3% (p = 0.050) for IMRT and CRT respectively. To minimize the effect of changes in treatment paradigm over time, analyses were performed for patients treated after January 2004 and still showed OS, DFS, and LRC differences. Comparison of toxicities demonstrated that IMRT was associated with fewer dermatitis than CRT (p < 0.01), but caused the same rates of mucositis, weight loss, enteral feeding, hospitalization and death during treatment. There was significantly less xerostomia at 24 and 36 months (p < 0.001) following the end of treatment with IMRT. Conclusions: In this retrospective study, higher dose per fraction and shorter overall treatment time using IMRT given concurrently with chemotherapy when compared to CRT is a safe regimen with better OS, DFS, LRC, and less long term xerostomia. Altered fractionation RT with chemotherapy seems to result in better outcome and future prospective trials are needed to confirm this hypothesis. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207