Elective Nodal Irradiation or Involved-Field Irradiation in Definitive Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Squamous Cell Cancer: A Retrospective Analysis in Clinical N0 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: We compared failure patterns and survival after elective nodal irradiation (eni) or involved-field irradiation (ifi) in patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (escc), clinical stage T2-4N0M0, to determine whether ifi is feasible for such patients. Methods: Between 2005 and 2015, 126 patients with clinical stage T2-4N0M0 thoracic escc who received definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy in Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute and who had complete data, were analyzed retrospectively. Of those patients, 49 received ifi, and 77 received eni. In the ifi group, the radiation field included the primary tumour, with a 3-cm to 4-cm margin in the craniocaudal direction, and the elective irradiation was delivered to the adjacent regional lymphatics according to the location of the primary tumour. Patterns of failure were classified using the first site of failure, which included primary tumour failure, regional lymph node failure, and distant metastasis. Results: = 0.761). The estimated 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year os rates were, respectively, 87.8%, 49.4%, and 32.3% for the ifi patients and 92.2%, 52.0%, and 28.9% for the eni patients. Disease persistence and primary lesion recurrence after complete remission (cr) were the most frequent causes of treatment failure in the patients overall (83 of 124, 66.9%). Of the 66 patients achieving a clinical cr, 25 experienced recurrence of the primary lesion, 12 experienced distant relapse, 10 experienced regional nodal failure, and 2 experienced an isolated recurrence. No significant differences in the pattern of failure or in the incidences of grade 3 or greater treatment-related myelosuppression or esophagitis were found between the ifi and eni groups. Conclusions: In patients with thoracic escc clinical stage T2-4N0M0 receiving definitive chemoradiotherapy, failure patterns and os were similar with either eni or ifi. Large prospective randomized studies are needed to further investigate and verify those results in this subgroup of patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".