Treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the modern era: analysis of outcomes and toxicity from a single center in a nonendemic area.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: We analyzed treatment outcomes for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in a single institute. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1992 to 2002, 82 patients with nasopharyngeal cancer were treated. Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall and disease-free survival were calculated. The log-rank test was used to determine significant prognostic determinants of overall and disease-free survival. RESULTS: Patients received one of three regimens: radiotherapy alone (n = 19), radiotherapy with concurrent carboplatin (n = 46), or radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin (n = 17). Fifty-seven percent of patients had their radiotherapy planned using fluoroscopy-based methods. Overall, 93.9% of patients received all prescribed radiotherapy. Response rate to treatment was 98.7%. Three-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates for all patients were 69.0% and 65%, respectively. Five patients had late grade 3-4 toxicities. There were no treatment-related deaths. Twenty-four percent of patients were hospitalized during treatment, and 72.6% lost < or = 9.9% of pretreatment weight. Forty-two percent of failures were local and 27.3% were distant. Ninety percent of deaths were nasopharyngeal carcinoma-related. Disease stage was the only significant predictor of overall survival. DISCUSSION: At our center, treatments given for nasopharyngeal carcinoma from 1992 to 2002 had acceptable toxicity rates. Further follow-up of patients treated with modern radiotherapy planning methods and chemotherapy regimens is needed to compare our institutional results with other published outcomes with more validity.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".