A real‐world comparison of cisplatin vs cetuximab used concurrently with radiation in the treatment of locally advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This population-based retrospective study compares the efficacy of cisplatin (cis-RT) vs cetuximab (cetux-RT) with concurrent radiation as definitive treatment in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC). METHODS: Patients with OPC treated in Alberta with cis-RT or cetux-RT between 2006 and 2016 were evaluated. Median disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable analysis (MVA) was completed with a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Among 546 patients with OPC, 431 (78.9%) received cis-RT and 115 (21.1%) cetux-RT. Patients treated with cetux-RT were more likely to develop a recurrence after treatment compared to cis-RT (25% vs 15%, P = .01). On MVA, current smoking, human papillomavirus (HPV)-negative status, higher Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), T-stage, and cetux-RT predicted for worse DFS and OS. Outcomes in older patients with a higher CCI still favored cis-RT. CONCLUSIONS: Our data reaffirm results from randomized studies showing better survival outcomes with cis-RT compared to cetux-RT even among those who are >65 with CCI ≥3.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".