Comparison of Two Standard Treatment Approaches in Locoregionally Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To compare outcomes and toxicity of two standard treatment approaches of advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Methods Between 2010 and 2016, patients with NPC, stage II–IVa, treated with induction chemotherapy (IC) (TPF), followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) (induction group), or CCRT, followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) (PF) (no-induction group), were retrospectively reviewed. CCRT included platinum-based chemotherapy with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Survival outcomes, the pattern of failures, toxicity, and predictors for survival outcomes were evaluated. Results A total of 110 patients were included, 65 in the induction group and 45 in the no-induction group. There were no significant differences in the DFS and overall survival (OS) at 3 years between the two groups. On multivariate analysis, performance status (1 vs. 0) predicted worse OS. The 3-year cumulative incidence rates for local, regional, and distant failures were 58.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.4–89%), 58.00% (95% CI: 8–88.8%), and 63.90% (95% CI: 14.1–90.2%), respectively. IC had more frequent acute grade (G) II anemia (13 vs. 1, p < 0.01), late G II brain toxicity (4 vs. 1, p < 0.01), and late G II dysphagia (32 vs. 11, p = 0.01). Conclusions Survival outcomes were comparable between the two groups. IC had more frequent acute G II anemia and late G II brain and esophageal toxicities.
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) | 0.001 | 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".