A comparison of weekly versus 3-weekly cisplatin during adjuvant radiotherapy for high-risk head and neck cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare cumulative cisplatin dose and toxicity between patients who received 3-weekly versus weekly cisplatin during adjuvant radiotherapy for high-risk head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive HNSCC patients with involved resection margins and/or extra-capsular extension in two tertiary cancer centers with different institutional practices were identified. Cumulative cisplatin dose was calculated and information on toxicity reviewed and compared between patients who received 3-weekly versus weekly cisplatin. RESULTS: Of 270 high risk patients, 60 received 3-weekly 100mg/m(2) and 48 received weekly 50mg/m(2) cisplatin during adjuvant radiotherapy (60-66Gy in 30-33 fractions). Fourteen patients received other chemotherapy schedules and 148 received no chemotherapy. Mean cumulative cisplatin dose was 199.4mg/m(2) (standard error (SE) 5.4) in 3-weekly versus 239.8mg/m(2) (SE 11.0, P=0.001) in weekly treated patients. Cumulative cisplatin ⩾200mg/m(2) was given to 67.7% of patients in the 3-weekly cohort and 85.2% (P=0.039) in the weekly cohort. The rate of feeding tube dependency 6months after treatment, osteoradionecrosis, neutropenic fever, and persistent renal function decline were not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: About one half of high-risk HNSCC patients are not eligible for cisplatin during postoperative radiotherapy. Patients treated with weekly 50mg/m(2) cisplatin received a higher cumulative dose with comparable toxicity as patients who received 3-weekly 100mg/m(2) cisplatin. Efficacy and applicability to the frequently used weekly 40mg/m(2) schedule remains to be evaluated.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".