Induction Chemotherapy Followed by Concomitant Chemoradiation in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Single Institution Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Phase 3 studies are underway to compare induction chemotherapy (IC) followed by concomitant chemoradiation (CRT) with CRT alone in advanced head and neck cancer. The purpose is to report the outcome of patients with advanced head and neck cancer treated at Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM) with IC followed by CRT. Methods: From March 1998 to December 2007, 56 consecutive patients were treated for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck with high-dose IC followed by CRT. Sixteen patients with carcinoma of the nasopharynx, paranasal sinuses or nasal cavity were excluded. Patients presented with either T4 (60%) or N3 (60%) disease. Outcomes were computed using Kaplan-Meier curves. The number of IC cycles were compared with logrank tests. Results: The 2 year estimates of OS, DFS, LRC and DMFS rates were 58%, 46%, 78% and 75% respectively. At last follow-up, we observed 17 patients with relapse of which 10 were at a distant site. When stratified by the number of IC cycles, a DMFS rate of 87% was observed for 1-2 cycles vs 49% for 3 cycles, p=0.05. Conclusions: Despite intensive treatment with platinum based IC and CRT, prognosis for this highly advanced population of T4 or N3 cancers is poor. The number of IC cycles seem to influence the rate of DM. Further trials are needed to answer the question regarding IC followed by CRT vs CRT alone. Targeted therapies might also yield more promising results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".