Treatment of Laryngeal Verrucous Carcinoma: 28‐Year Retrospective Cohort Study and Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Laryngeal verrucous carcinoma (LVC) comprises 1% to 4% of all laryngeal tumors. Although controversial, surgery has been the mainstay of treatment, due to concern about anaplastic transformation with radiotherapy. We aimed to study LVC patients to identify treatment patterns for primary and recurrent diseases. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Tertiary referral center. Methods: Patients with a pathological diagnosis of LVC treated over a 28-year period were included. Baseline demographics, and treatment outcome measures including 5-year laryngeal preservation rates (LPR), overall survival (OS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were included. A literature review of published studies within the same study period was also completed. Results: Thirty-two patients were included in the analysis (median age 61.5 years, 93.8% [30/32] male). Twenty-three patients had T1 disease, and 9 had T2 disease with no evidence of regional or metastatic disease. The most common presenting symptom was hoarseness (93.8%) and the majority within the glottis 81.3% (26/32). Twenty-nine patients underwent primary surgery only (28 local excisions, 1 vertical partial laryngectomy) meanwhile 3 underwent local excision with postoperative radiotherapy. LPR, OS, and RFS at 5 years were 95.8%, 90.1%, and 80.6%, respectively. Our literature review identified 23 previous studies, mostly single-institution retrospective case series. Our study was the largest Canadian study in the literature to date. Conclusion: All LVC patients were treated with primary surgery, consistent with the current literature with excellent 5-year OS and LPR. There was no consensus on the treatment of recurrent disease. Future prospective multicenter studies are warranted to further study this rare disease population.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".