Oncological and functional outcomes after repeat transoral laser microsurgery for the treatment of recurrent early glottic cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transoral laser microsurgery for glottic squamous cell carcinoma is the standard of care at many institutions. Repeat transoral laser microsurgery for recurrence may avoid the need for radiotherapy and total laryngectomy. This study aimed to identify oncological and functional outcomes in a cohort of patients who had undergone repeat transoral laser microsurgery procedures. METHOD: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data of patients treated with transoral laser microsurgery for carcinoma in situ or tumour stages T1 or T2 glottic cancer, from 2003 to 2018. RESULTS: Twenty patients were identified. Additional treatment was not needed in 45 per cent of patients. The five-year overall survival rate was 90 per cent. The disease-specific survival rate was 100 per cent. The laryngeal preservation rate was 85 per cent. There was improvement in mean Voice Handicap Index-10 scores following repeat transoral laser microsurgery treatment, when comparing the pre- and post-operative periods (mean scores = 15.5 vs 11.5, p = 0.373). CONCLUSION: Repeat transoral laser microsurgery can be an oncologically safe alternative to other salvage therapies for glottic squamous cell carcinoma recurrence, without sacrificing functional outcomes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".