Investigating Predictive Factors of Dysphagia and Treatment Prolongation in Patients with Oral Cavity or Oropharyngeal Cancer Receiving Radiation Therapy Concurrently with Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiation therapy (RT) treatment for head and neck cancer has been associated with dysphagia manifestation leading to worse outcomes and decrease in life quality. In this study, we investigated factors leading to dysphagia and treatment prolongation in patients with primaries arising from oral cavity or oropharynx that were submitted to radiation therapy concurrently with chemotherapy. The records of patients with oral cavity or oropharyngeal cancer that received RT treatment to the primary and bilateral neck lymph nodes concurrently with chemotherapy were retrospectively reviewed. Logistic regression models were used to analyze the potential correlation between explanatory variables and the primary (dysphagia ≥ 2) and secondary (prolongation of total treatment duration ≥ 7 days) outcomes of interest. The Toxicity Criteria of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) were used to evaluate dysphagia. A total of 160 patients were included in the study. Age mean was 63.31 (SD = 8.24). Dysphagia grade ≥ 2 was observed in 76 (47.5%) patients, while 32 (20%) experienced treatment prolongation ≥ 7 days. The logistic regression analysis showed that the volume in the primary site of disease that received dose ≥ 60 Gy (≥118.75 cc, p < 0.001, (OR = 8.43, 95% CI [3.51–20.26]) and mean dose to the pharyngeal constrictor muscles > 40.6 Gy (p < 0.001, OR = 11.58, 95% CI [4.84–27.71]) were significantly associated with dysphagia grade ≥ 2. Treatment prolongation ≥ 7 days was predicted by higher age (p = 0.007, OR = 1.079, 95% CI [1.021–1.140]) and development of grade ≥ 2 dysphagia (p = 0.005, OR = 4.02, 95% CI [1.53–10.53]). In patients with oral cavity or oropharyngeal cancer that receive bilateral neck irradiation concurrently with chemotherapy, constrictors mean dose and the volume in the primary site receiving ≥ 60 Gy should be kept below 40.6 Gy and 118.75 cc, respectively, whenever possible. Elderly patients or those that are considered at high risk for dysphagia manifestation are more likely to experience treatment prolongation ≥ 7 days and they should be closely monitored during treatment course for nutritional support and pain management.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".