Platinum‐based regimens <i>versus</i> cetuximab in definitive chemoradiation for human papillomavirus‐unrelated head and neck cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For patients ineligible for cisplatin with definitive radiotherapy (CP-CRT) for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (LA-HNSCC), concurrent cetuximab (C225-RT) is a popular substitute. Carboplatin-based chemoradiation (CB-CRT) is another option; however, relative efficacies of CP-CRT, CB-CRT and C225-RT are unclear, particularly in the human papillomavirus (HPV)-unrelated population. We identified 316 patients with stage III-IVB cancers of the oropharynx (24.7%), larynx (58.2%) and hypopharynx (17.1%) undergoing definitive C225-RT (N = 61), CB-CRT (N = 74) or CP-CRT (N = 181). Kaplan-Meier and cumulative incidence functions were generated to estimate overall survival (OS), locoregional failure (LRF) and distant metastasis (DM). Cox proportional hazards were used to determine the association of survival endpoints with clinical characteristics. Respectively, 3-year cumulative incidences for CP-CRT, CB-CRT and C225-RT were: LRF (0.19, 0.18 and 0.48, p ≤ 0.001), DM (0.17, 0.12 and 0.25, p = 0.32). Kaplan-Meier estimates for 3 year OS were: CP-CRT: 71%; CB-CRT: 59% and C225-RT: 54%; p = 0.0094. CP-CRT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.336; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.203-0.557, p < 0.01) and CB-CRT (HR 0.279; 95% CI 0.141-0.551, p < 0.01) were associated with reduced hazard for LRF on multivariable analysis. CP-CRT (HR 0.548; 95% CI 0.355-0.845, p < 0.01) and CB-CRT (HR 0.549; 95% CI 0.334-0.904, p = 0.02) were associated with a reduced hazard for death on multivariable analysis. Propensity matching confirmed reduced hazards with a combined CP/CB-CRT group compared to C225-RT for LRF: HR 0.384 (p = 0.018) and OS: HR 0.557 (p = 0.045) and CB-CRT group compared to C225-RT for LRF: HR 0.427 (p = 0.023). In conclusion, CB-CRT is an effective alternative to CP-CRT in HPV-unrelated LA-HNSCC with superior locoregional control and OS compared to C225-RT.
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".