Primary organ preservation vs total laryngectomy for T4a larynx cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consensus regarding the management of T4a larynx cancer. We evaluated the outcomes of organ preservation and laryngectomy for T4a laryngeal cancer. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients with T4a larynx cancer at BC Cancer from 1984 to 2014 was performed. Outcomes in patients treated with surgery alone (Sx) (n = 47), surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy (Sx/RT) (n = 94), radiation alone (RT) (n = 152), and radiation with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (chemoRT) (n = 36) were compared. RESULTS: The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 40% for chemoRT, 34% for RT, 23% for Sx, and 45% for Sx/RT. On multivariate analysis (MVA), Sx/RT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-0.91) and chemoRT (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.26-0.72) were associated with better OS than RT alone (P = .001). Sx had similar OS compared to RT (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.82-1.68). CONCLUSIONS: ChemoRT and Sx/RT were associated with better OS compared to single modality treatment. ChemoRT may be considered as an option for T4a larynx cancer.
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".