Survival of Patients with Subglottic Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Subglottic squamous cell carcinoma is a rare subsite of laryngeal cancer that behaves more aggressively and portends a worse prognosis. Using a population-based cancer registry, our objective was to report overall survival (OS) and laryngectomy-free survival (LFS) in patients diagnosed with subglottic squamous cell carcinoma, and to determine whether primary laryngectomy results in improved survival. Methods: This retrospective population-based study considered patients with a new diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma in the province of Ontario over a 15-year period (1995–2009). The Ontario Cancer Registry was examined for patients with the diagnosis of interest during the period of interest. Linked population-based databases were used to obtain patient demographics, comorbidity measures, staging, survival, and primary treatment with laryngectomy. Results: Of 4927 patients identified to have laryngeal carcinoma, 89 were defined as having primary subglottic carcinoma (1.8%). In the subglottic cohort, 68 patients were men (76.4%), and mean age at diagnosis was 68 years (interquartile range: 60–77 years). The 5-year OS was 47.2%, and the 5-year LFS was 31.5%. In 13 patients (15%), the primary treatment was laryngectomy, which, compared with primary radiation, did not predict for improved OS. No differences in OS or LFS were observed during the 15-year study period (OS p = 0.42, LFS p = 0.83). Conclusions: The survival of patients with subglottic carcinoma is poor and has remained stable over time (1995–2009). Compared with primary radiation, primary treatment with laryngectomy does not appear to improve OS.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".