Tolerability of the Intergroup 0099 regimen in locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer with a focus on patients' nutritional status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
5572 Background: By showing a survival benefit over radiation alone, the INT 0099 trial of concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) set a new standard of practice. This retrospective review documents our institutional experience with this regimen in terms of treatment tolerability, compliance, and weight changes. We also evaluated the impact of feeding tubes on weight recovery. Methods: All NPC patients treated between 01/1998 and 12/2002 with the INT 0099 regimen at our institution were identified. Information on treatment compliance, toxicity, weight change and feeding tube use was recorded. Patients were grouped by therapy completion status and by feeding tube status (prophylactic, therapeutic or none received). Results: Of 78 consecutive patients, 75 were evaluable. Compliance with radiotherapy was excellent with all but 2 patients completing full dose on schedule. Only 43% of patients received all three cycles of concurrent Cisplatin and 33% received the intended dose intensity without modification. Sixty-one percent of patients received all three cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients who successfully completed therapy had a higher average baseline weight and were more likely to have had a feeding tube inserted prophylactically. The 35 patients who did not receive a feeding tube had the least drop in weight and recovered to 92.1% of baseline at one year. Amongst the 2 groups with feeding tubes, those with prophylactic insertion (n=23) had a more gradual drop in weight, and recovered to a greater degree at one year (93.6%), versus those with a feeding tube inserted therapeutically during treatment (n=17) who recovered to 87.2% of baseline weight at one year. Feeding tubes were well tolerated in most patients. Conclusions: The INT 0099 regimen was generally delivered with modifications to the chemotherapy component, as in the original trial. The prophylactic insertion of a feeding tube may facilitate therapy completion and weight recovery in some patients. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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) | 0.000 | 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".