Long‐term outcomes of modern multidisciplinary management of sinonasal cancers: The <scp>M. D.</scp> Anderson experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report long-term outcomes of modern radiotherapy for sinonasal cancers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective analysis of patients with sinonasal tumors treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy or proton therapy. Multivariate analysis was used to determine predictive variables of progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Three hundred and eleven patients were included, with median follow-up of 75 months. The most common histologies were squamous cell (42%), adenoid cystic (15%), and sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma (15%). Induction chemotherapy was administered to 47% of patients; 68% had adjuvant radiotherapy. Ten-year local control, regional control, distant metastasis free survival, PFS, and overall survival rates were 73%, 88%, 47%, 32%, and 51%, respectively. Age, non-nasal cavity tumor site, T3-4 stage, neck dissection, and radiation dose were predictive of PFS, while age, non-nasal cavity tumor site, T3-4 stage, positive margins, neck dissection, and use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were predictive of OS. There was a 13% rate of late grade ≥3 toxicities. CONCLUSION: This cohort of patients with sinonasal cancer treated with modern radiotherapy demonstrates favorable disease control rate and acceptable toxicity profile.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".