Survival Outcomes and Patterns of Recurrence in Patients with Stage III or IV Oropharyngeal Cancer Treated with Primary Surgery or Radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare and contrast the patterns of failure in patients with locally advanced squamous cell oropharyngeal cancers undergoing curative-intent treatment with primary surgery or radiotherapy +/- chemotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two hundred and thirty-three patients with stage III or IV oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent curative-intent treatment from 2006-2012, were reviewed. The median length of follow-up for patients still alive at the time of analysis was 4.4 years. Data was collected retrospectively from a chart review. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-nine patients underwent primary surgery +/- adjuvant therapy, and 94 patients underwent primary radiotherapy +/- chemotherapy (CRT). Demographics were similar between the two groups, except primary radiotherapy patients had a higher age-adjusted Charleston co-morbidity score (CCI). Twenty-nine patients from the surgery group recurred; 15 failed distantly only, seven failed locoregionally, and seven failed both distantly and locoregionally. Twelve patients recurred who underwent chemoradiotherapy; ten distantly alone, and two locoregionally. One patient who underwent radiotherapy (RT) alone failed distantly. Two and five-year recurrence-free survival rates for patients undergoing primary RT were 86.6% and 84.9% respectively. Two and five-year recurrence-free survival rates for primary surgery was 80.9% and 76.3% respectively (p=0.21). There was no significant difference in either treatment when they were stratified by p16 status or smoking status. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis does not show any difference in outcomes for patients treated with primary surgery or radiotherapy. Although the primary pattern of failure in both groups was distant metastatic disease, some local failures may be preventable with careful delineation of target volumes, especially near the base of skull region.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".