Radiation therapy treatment facility and overall survival in the adjuvant setting for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment at high-volume surgical facilities (HVSFs) provides a survival benefit for patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCCs); however, it is unknown what role postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) plays in achieving the improved outcomes. METHODS: From the National Cancer Database, 6844 patients with locally advanced invasive HNSCCs of the oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx, and hypopharynx who underwent definitive surgery with PORT between 2004 and 2013 were identified. HVSFs were those in the top percentile for annual case volume during this period. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 54 months. Compared with a lower volume surgical facility (LVSF), an HVSF improved 5-year overall survival (OS; 57.7% at HVSFs vs 52.5% at LVSFs; P = .0003). Overall, 31.6% of the patients changed their radiation therapy (RT) facility after surgery, with this being more common at HVSFs (39.1% vs 28.9% at LVSFs; P < .001). Among those patients undergoing surgery at an HVSF, remaining at the same facility for RT improved 5-year OS (63.1% vs 49.3% with a facility change; P < .0001). A propensity score-matched cohort of patients treated at HVSFs confirmed the improved 5-year OS when patients remained at the treating HVSF for RT (59.2% vs 50.7% with a facility change; P = .005). In a multivariate analysis, treatment at an HVSF and remaining there for RT resulted in a reduced hazard of death (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.94; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: The survival benefit associated with HVSFs persists only when patients remain at the facility for RT, and this suggests that facility specialization and/or high-volume PORT may assist in driving the OS improvement.
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".