MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A phase II randomized trial for early-stage squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx: Radiotherapy versus trans-oral robotic surgery (ORATOR).

2019· article· en· W2947197349 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anthony C. Nichols, Julie Theurer, Eitan Prisman, Nancy Read, Eric Berthelet, Eric Tran, Kevin Fung, John R. de Almeida, Andrew Hope, David P. Goldstein, Michael Hier, Khalil Sultanem, John Yoo, S. Danielle MacNeil, Eric Winquist, Alex Hammond, Varagur Venkatesan, Sara Kuruvilla, Libni Eapen, David A. Palma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill UniversityOttawa HospitalBC Cancer AgencyPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaCancer Care OntarioLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransoral robotic surgeryClinical endpointSwallowingQuality of life (healthcare)DysphagiaRandomized controlled trialRadiation therapySurgeryStage (stratigraphy)TonsilInternal medicineNeck dissectionAdverse effectOncologyCarcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6006 Background: The incidence of OPSCC has risen rapidly, due to an epidemic of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Radiation therapy (RT) has historically been the standard treatment, but transoral robotic surgery (TORS) has surpassed RT in the US as the most common approach, based on assumptions of reduced toxicity or improved quality of life (QOL). No randomized trials have previously compared these treatments. Methods: The ORATOR trial (NCT01590355) enrolled patients with T1-T2 N0-2(≤4 cm) OPSCC amenable to TORS. We randomly assigned patients, stratified by p16 status, to RT (70 Gy/35 fractions, with chemotherapy if N1-2) vs. TORS (± adjuvant [chemo]RT based on pathology). The primary endpoint was a definitive comparison of swallowing QOL at 1-year using the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI), powered to detect a 10-point improvement (a clinically-meaningful change [CMC]) in the TORS arm. Secondary endpoints included adverse events (AEs), other QOL outcomes [including EORTC scales, the Voice Handicap Index-10, Neck Dissection Impairment Index, and Patient Neurotoxicity Questionnaire], overall- and progression-free survival (OS, PFS). All analyses were pre-specified and intention-to-treat. Results: Between 2012 and 2017, 68 patients were randomized (n = 34 in each arm), in Canada and Australia. Median age was 59 years; 87% were male. Primary tumor sites were palatine tonsil (74%) or base of tongue (26%). Arms were well-balanced for baseline factors, including p16 status (88% in each arm). Median follow-up was 27 months. MDADI scores at 1-year were statistically superior in the RT arm (mean ± SD: 86.9 ± 11.4 vs. 80.1 ± 13.0 in the TORS arm; p = 0.042), but not meeting the definition of a CMC. For the other QOL metrics, outcomes were similar at 1-year. Feeding tube rates at 1-year were 3% (n = 1) vs. 0% respectively. Rates of treatment-related grade ≥2 AEs were similar (91% vs. 100%, p = 0.24), with more neutropenia, constipation and tinnitus in the RT arm and more trismus in the TORS arm (all p < 0.05). There was one TORS bleeding-related death. OS and PFS were similar. Conclusions: RT had superior swallowing QOL scores at 1 year compared to TORS, but the difference was not a CMC. Toxicities differed between the arms. This study provides the first level 1 evidence to inform patients of the QOL impact of both approaches. Clinical trial information: NCT01590355.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207