The influence of institutional head and neck cancer (HNC) clinical trial accrual on overall survival (OS): An analysis of RTOG 0129.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
5530 Background: NCCN recommends HNC patients (pts) be treated by providers with experience in HNC management. Whether treatment by experienced providers (measured by no. of pts treated) is associated with HNC survival outcome is unknown. Methods: Analysis included 471 pts in RTOG 0129 with stage III-IVa HNC with known tumor HPV and smoking status randomized to cisplatin concurrent with standard or accelerated fractionation radiotherapy (RT). Participating centers were stratified into pt accrual tertiles (ATs) to 21 RTOG HNC trials from 1997-2002. As a surrogate for experience, we investigated the independent effect of AT on OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in multivariable cox proportional hazards models. Results: Median follow up was 4.8 yrs (range 1.1 - 6.5). In Kaplan-Meier analysis, OS and PFS for pts at centers in the two lower AT (low accruing centers [LAC]) were similar and compared to the upper AT (high accruing centers [HAC]). Median accrual in LAC vs HAC was 11 vs 82 pts. Pts treated at LAC and HAC had similar age, HPV status, pack-years, N stage, comorbidities and study arm assignment (SAA), but pts at LAC had better performance status (PS)(Zubrod 0; 62% vs 52%; p=0.04), fewer T4 tumors (27% vs. 35%; p=0.05) and were more likely uninsured (12% vs 4%; p=0.009). Compared to HAC, LAC pts had significantly worse OS, (5 yr 51.0% vs 69.1%; p = 0.002), and PFS (5 yr 42.7% vs 61.8%; p = 0.001) and more locoregional failure (5 yr 36.4% vs 20.8%; p <0.001). Treatment at LAC was associated with ~90% increase in risk of death (OS HR 1.91, 95%CI 1.37-2.65) and progression (PFS HR 1.89, 95%CI 1.39-2.56) when compared to pts treated at HAC, after adjustment for age, PS, pack-years, T and N stage, SAA and HPV status. Acute and chronic toxicities, RT dose, fractions, and treatment duration did not differ for pts at LAC vs HAC. RT at LAC was more likely than HAC to differ from protocol (18% [16.8% acceptable variation {AV}, 1.2% unacceptable deviation {UD}] vs 6% [4.7% AV, 1.3% UD]; p<0.001). Conclusions: Pts with HNC treated at LAC in RTOG trials were associated with significantly worse survival outcomes compared to pts treated at HAC.
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 | 0.029 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".