Induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiation versus concurrent chemoradiation alone for locally advanced laryngeal & nasopharyngeal cancers: A retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: One of the most common cancers all over the world is Head and Neck cancers, with higher mortality rates among developing countries. Squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) represent more than 90%. SCCs arise commonly from the mucosal lining of the upper aerodigestive tract.Objective: To Compare between Concurrent Chemoradiation following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy versus Concurrent Chemoradiation alone in Locally Advanced Larynx & Nasopharynx Cancer (stage III or IVA,B) regarding efficacy, toxicity, progression free survival, disease free survival and organ preservation (in laryngeal cancer).Methods: A Retrospective study was conducted to Compare between Concurrent Chemoradiation following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy versus Concurrent Chemoradiation alone in Locally Advanced Larynx & Nasopharynx Cancer (stage III or IVA,B) in the Clinical Oncology Department, Suez Canal University Hospital, Ismailia, Egypt between 1/2017 & 12/2018, with follow up 2 years (from 1/2019 to 12/2020).Results: Results of our study show a statistic significance in progression free survival in Concurrent chemoradiation following neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with concurrent chemoradiation alone.Conclusions: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy by TPF or PF is a wise choice in the locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the nasopharynx and larynx (non-metastatic cases). Better results were detected in radiological assessment post radiation therapy in laryngeal cancer cases and progression free survival in both treatment groups.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".