Longitudinal Quality-of-Life Analysis of RTOG 94-05 (Int 0123):A Phase III Trial of Definitive Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Longitudinal quality of life (QoL) was compared for patients with esophageal cancer receiving definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with conventional-dose (CD) vs. high-dose (HD) radiotherapy as used in the RTOG phase III 94-05 trial (Intergroup 0123). METHODS: Between June 12, 1995, and July 1, 1999, 236 patients with cT1-4NxM0 esophageal cancer were randomized to CD CRT (50.4 Gy and concurrent 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin) vs. HD CRT (64.8 Gy and the same chemotherapy). QoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy, Head & Neck (version 2) at baseline, after CRT, at 8 months from the start of CRT, and at 1 year. RESULTS: Of 218 eligible patients, 166 participated in pretreatment QoL assessments (82 HD, 84 CD). Patients with ≥10% weight loss and Karnofsky Performance Status 60-80 were less likely to participate (P = .02 and P = .002, respectively). Pretreatment characteristics for participating patients were similar in both arms. At CRT completion, 96 patients completed QoL (46 HD, 50 CD) assessment. Total mean QoL was significantly lower in the HD arm (P = .02) and remained lower at 8 and 12 months after the start of CRT, but these values did not reach statistical significance. Change in mean QoL from baseline to each of the three subsequent assessment time points did not differ significantly between the two treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: For patients treated with definitive CRT for esophageal cancer, radiation dose escalation to 64.8 Gy does not significantly improve QoL. These results provide additional evidence that radiotherapy to 50.4 Gy should remain the standard of care.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".