Survival in Patients with Primary Parotid Gland Carcinoma after Surgery—Results of a Single-Centre Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to analyse a single-centre cohort series of patients who underwent parotidectomy for primary malignant parotid tumours. A retrospective chart review of 64 consecutive patients treated from November 2010 to March 2022 was performed. Outcomes were analysed by Kaplan-Meier curves. Sixty-four patients with a primary parotid malignancy were included in the study, with one bilateral case in this cohort. Patients were classified as stage I-II in 39 cases and stage III-IV in 26 cases. The five-year overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), local relapse-free survival (LRFS), and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rates were 78.4%, 89%, 92.5%, and 87.1%, respectively. Univariate analysis showed that high-risk histology, stage IV disease, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, node metastasis, skin involvement, facial nerve involvement, and positive or close margins were risk factors associated with poorer outcomes. At present, the best evidence suggests that radical surgery should be the standard approach, and adjuvant therapy, in terms of radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy, is recommended in patients with risk factors.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".