Adjuvant radiotherapy versus concurrent chemoradiotherapy for the management of high‐risk salivary gland carcinomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the aggressive behavior of advanced salivary malignancies, the purpose of the current study was to explore the utility of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in this population. METHODS: A retrospective study of salivary carcinomas treated from 1998 to 2013 with postoperative CRT (37 patients) or radiotherapy (RT; 103 patients) was completed. RESULTS: The decision to utilize adjuvant CRT versus RT was influenced by tumor grade and histology, cervical lymph node status, surgical margins, and perineural invasion. In both treatment cohorts, high locoregional control rates were obtained (79% for CRT vs 91% for RT; p = .031). Multivariate Cox regression analysis did not identify a difference in 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) with the use of CRT versus RT (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.783; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.396-1.549; p = .482). CONCLUSION: Until prospective evidence is available, such as from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 1008, the standard use of CRT for advanced salivary malignancies cannot be recommended. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: 1708-1716, 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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".