Local Treatment Efficacy for Single-Area Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Unknown Primary Site
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prognosis for cancer of unknown primary site (CUP) is poor, and squamous cell carcinoma of the unknown primary site (SCCUP) is a rare histological type. CUP is often treated with aggressive multimodal treatments, while the treatment of single-area localized CUP remains controversial. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with CUP. SCCUP in women was classified according to several definitions. Based on the histologic type and site, they were classified into favorable and unfavorable subsets. We further divided SCCUP into two types (single and multiple areas) and reviewed treatment and efficacy. Among the 227 female CUP patients, 36 (15%) had SCCUP. The median age was 59.9 years (range, 31-90 years). Most patients (61.1%) had a good performance status. Of the SCCUP patients, 22 had cancer in a single area, and 14 in multiple areas. Single-area SCCUP was further divided into favorable (16 cases) and unfavorable subsets (6 cases). In the favorable subset, local treatment was predominant, and almost all cases had a good prognosis. Even in the unfavorable subset, local therapy was combined with systemic chemotherapy in only two cases, and four cases showed no recurrences. Local treatment may be effective for single-area SCCUP, even in the unfavorable subset.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".