Comparison of endoscopic laser resection versus radiation therapy for the treatment of early glottic carcinoma.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Radiation therapy (RT) and transoral laser microsurgery (TLM) are established treatments for early glottic squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Similar oncologic outcomes have been reported with both modalities, leading physicians to consider other factors when making clinical recommendations. One such factor is voice-related quality of life. This investigation sought to characterize differences in self-reported voice outcomes in patients undergoing RT or TLM for the treatment of Tis or T1a glottic SCC. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of all individuals who received either RT or TLM for the treatment of Tis or T1a glottic SCC between 2004 and 2009 at the London Regional Cancer Program. The primary outcome measure was voice-related quality of life, as assessed by the Voice-Related Quality of Life questionnaire (V-RQOL). Secondary outcomes included local control, overall survival, and laryngectomy-free survival. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were eligible for this study; 34 received RT and 23 received TLM. Forty (70.2%) of the 57 patients completed the V-RQOL. No statistically significant difference in total V-RQOL score was observed between the RT and TLM cohorts (p = .228). There was, however, a trend toward higher scores (ie, less voice disability) in the physical function domain of the V-RQOL for the RT group (90.0%) compared to the TLM group (80.2%) (p = .05). No significant differences were observed in recurrence or overall survival between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Both oncologic outcomes and self-rated voice-related quality of life are similar in patients treated with RT and TLM for early glottic carcinoma.
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".