Evaluating organ preservation outcome as treatment endpoint for T1aN0 glottic cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Common endpoints in reporting the outcomes for early glottic cancer do not highlight the importance of organ preservation. We evaluated the treatment outcomes among patients with T1aN0 laryngeal cancer with laryngectomy-free disease-specific survival (LFS-DSS), which is defined as time to total laryngectomy or time to death from cancer cause, against all other endpoints. STUDY DESIGN: Outcome research on an institutional database. METHODS: A retrospective review covered all consecutive patients from 2003 to 2013. Patients with T1a laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) were offered the options of either radiation treatment (RT) or transoral laser microsurgery (TLM). Tumor control, survival outcomes, standard definition laryngectomy-free survival (LFS), and LFS-DSS were calculated. RESULTS: There were 105 patients, of whom 53 were treated with TLM and 52 were treated with RT. There were 11 recurrences within the TLM group, of which four were successfully salvaged with repeated TLM and two were salvaged with RT. Among the four recurrences within the RT group, all four patients had salvage total laryngectomies. The 5-year overall survival for patients treated with TLM versus RT was 86% versus 85% (P = .887), disease-free survival was 69% versus 78% (P = .151), LFS was 65% versus 77% (P = .198), LFS-DSS was 100% versus 88% (P = .030), and ultimate locoregional control was 100% in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with T1aN0 glottic SCC treated with RT or TLM have similar survival outcomes. Patients with T1a tumor treated with TLM have better organ preservation compared to RT, when measured with LFS-DSS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 127:1322-1327, 2017.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".