Comparison of Primary B/NKT Non‐Hodgkin Lymphomas in Nasopharynx, Nasal Cavity, and Paranasal Sinuses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare clinical and survival differences between B-cell (B-NHL) and NKT-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NKT-NHL) located in the nasal cavity (NC), nasopharynx, and paranasal sinuses, which are always categorized as one sinonasal type. STUDY DESIGN: Patients diagnosed with primary B-NHL and NKT-NHL in the nasal cavity, nasopharynx, and paranasal sinuses from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were included (1975-2017). SETTING: Population-based cohort study. METHODS: We conducted univariate and multivariate Cox regressions and Kaplan-Meier analysis to examine survival outcomes of B/NKT-NHL in the nasal cavity, nasopharynx, and paranasal sinuses, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, most B-NHL cases originated from the nasopharynx, while the majority of NKT-NHL cases occurred in the nasal cavity. Notably, the cancer-special survival (CSS) outcomes improved significantly in all sinonasal B-NHL cases over time, whereas no such improvement trend was observed in each sinonasal NKT-NHL type. Additionally, increasing age was linked with an elevated risk of death in B-NHL, particularly in the nasal cavity (Hazard ratio [HR]: 3.37), rather than in NKT-NHL. Compared with B-NHL, the adverse effect of a higher stage on CSS was more evident in NKT-NHL, particularly in its nasopharynx site (HR: 5.12). Furthermore, radiotherapy was beneficial for survival in patients with sinonasal B-NHL and NKT-NHL, except in the nasopharynx NKT-NHL. However, chemotherapy has only been beneficial for CSS in patients with paranasal sinuses B-NHL (HR: 0.42) since 2010, rather than in other types of B/NKT-NHL. CONCLUSION: Although B-NHL and NKT-NHL in the nasal cavity, nasopharynx and paranasal sinuses have similar anatomical locations, their clinicodemographics and prognoses are largely different and should be treated and studied as distinct diseases.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".