Comparative Evaluation of Three Palliative Radiotherapy Schedules in Locally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy, tolerability and toxicity of three palliative radiotherapy (RT) schedules in locally advanced head and neck carcinoma (LAHNC), i.e. Quad Shot schedule, Christie schedule and conventional palliative schedule. METHODS: The patients were randomly divided into three groups of 30 each. Group I patients were planned for 14.8 Gy in 4 fractions over 2 days, repeated three weekly for two more cycles. Group II patients were planned for 50 Gy in 16 fractions over 3.1 weeks. Group III patients were planned for 20 Gy in 5 fractions over 5 days, repeated after an interval of 3 weeks. The quality of life was assessed before and after RT using University of Washington Quality of Life questionnaire version 4. RESULTS: Local control rates were 84%, 76%, and 76% for groups I, II and III, respectively. Disease status at 6-month follow-up was no evidence of disease (20%, 28%, and 16%), residual disease (72%, 48%, and 76%), and recurrent disease (8%, 24%, and 8%) in groups I, II and III, respectively. Grade III acute skin reactions were 28%, 44%, and 16% in groups I, II and III, respectively. Grade III acute mucosal reactions were 36%, 56%, and 24% in group I, II and III, respectively. Quality of life improved in all groups after RT. CONCLUSION: Quad Shot schedule may be used in LAHNC with better local control and acceptable toxicity as compared to conventional palliative RT schedule in Indian setting.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".