Modern Treatment Outcomes for Early T-Stage Oropharyngeal Cancer Treated With Intensity-modulated Radiation Therapy at a Tertiary Care Institution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BackgroundTransoral surgery (TOS), particularly transoral robotic surgery (TORS) has become the preferred modality in the United States for the treatment of early stage oropharyngeal cancer, largely due to assumptions of fewer toxicities and improved quality of life compared to primary radiotherapy (RT). However, these assumptions are based on retrospective analysis, a subset of which utilize primary RT groups not limited to T1-2 stage tumors for which transoral robotic surgery is FDA approved. Thus, there is potential for underestimating survival and overestimating toxicity, including treatment related mortality, in primary RT.MethodsConsecutive cases of early T stage (T1-T2) oropharyngeal cancer presenting to the London Health Sciences Centre between 2014-2018 treated with RT or chemoradiation (CRT) were reviewed. Patient demographics, treatment details, survival outcomes and toxicity were collected. Toxicities were retrospectively graded using the CTCAE criteria.ResultsA total of 198 patients were identified, of which 82% were male and 73% were HPV-positive. Sixty-eight percent of patients experienced a grade 2 toxicity, 48% a grade 3 and 4% a grade 4. The most frequent toxicities were dysphagia, neutropenia and ototoxicity. The rates of gastrostomy tube dependence at 1 and 2 years were 2.5% and 1% respectively. There were no grade 5 (fatal) toxicities. HPV-positive patients experienced improved 5-year overall survival (86% vs 64%, p=0.0026). ConclusionsPrimary RT or CRT provides outstanding survival for early T-stage HPV-positive disease, with low rates of severe toxicity and feeding tube dependence. This study provides a reference for comparison for patients treated with primary transoral surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".