MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W248097250

Does PET/CT improve patient management after curative-intent radiotherapy (RT) for head & neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC)?

2013· article· en· W248097250 on OpenAlexaff
Tarnjit Parhar, Hosam A. Kader, R. Petter Tonseth, Don Wilson, François Bénard, Ivo A. Olivotto

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNuclear medicineHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaPET-CTRadiologyHead and neck cancerRadiation therapyHead and neckPositron emission tomographySurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

509 Objectives To determine the value of adding PET/CT to clinical assessment after curative-intent RT in patients with HNSCC. Methods Patients with HNSCC receiving a post-RT PET/CT from 2005-2010 were retrospectively identified. RT was followed by clinical exam and at least one PET/CT 60-180 days after RT-end. The clinical exam immediately prior to the date of the PET/CT was scored as: i) disease free or ii) suspicious/definite for HNSCC. PET/CT scans were scored as: i) disease free, ii) equivocal, or iii) suspicious/definite for HNSCC. Final analysis was conducted in two ways: an equivocal PET/CT was considered either (1) positive or (2) negative. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, accuracy, false negative (FN), and false positive (FP) rates of PET/CT were determined for each analysis. Referring physicians were prospectively sent surveys 7-10 days after a patient9s PET/CT to assess the percent change in patient management from PET/CT results. Results 352 patients met eligibility. PET/CT was performed a median of 14 weeks after RT. Median follow-up after RT was 30 months. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 85%, 80%, 56%, 95%, for Analysis 1, and 75%, 92%, 74%, and 93% for Analysis 2, respectively. Overall accuracy of PET/CT was 81% in Analysis 1 and 88% in Analysis 2. The FN and FP rates were 3.4% and 15.3% in Analysis 1, and 5.7% and 6% in Analysis 2, respectively. 76% of ordering physicians felt PET/CT led to a change in their intended patient management. Conclusions A negative PET/CT ~14 weeks after RT reliably predicts disease absence. Patients with negative clinical exam and negative PET/CT may be offered less frequent follow-up than usual. The PPV of PET/CT is modest, requiring confirmation prior to radical surgery. Patients with an equivocal PET/CT should be followed with close clinical exam and imaging to reduce the possible harm from FNs. Physicians found PET/CT valuable in decision-making. Thus, PET/CT should be part of the post-treatment clinical algorithm for patients with HNSCC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHead and Neck Cancer Studies→French-language works237,207→