Impact of a Multidisciplinary Head and Neck Tumor Board on Treatment and Survival in Laryngeal Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pretherapeutic discussion in the head and neck tumor board (HNT) has been mandatory at the University Medical Center Freiburg since 01/2015, and it is intended to contribute to a survival benefit through interdisciplinary decision making. Prior to 2015, an optional HNT existed in which mainly advanced tumor stages were discussed. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of a pretherapeutic HNT on treatment and survival in laryngeal cancer. Methods: A retrospective data analysis of 412 laryngeal carcinoma patients treated at the Head and Neck Cancer Center of the University Medical Center Freiburg between 01/2010 and 12/2020 was conducted. Differences regarding TNM status, UICC classification, tumor localization, gender and age at initial diagnosis, recurrence, secondary tumors, therapy, 5-year survival, and 5-year recurrence-free survival (5YSR/5Y-RFS) were assessed for therapy initiation with or without a pretherapeutic HNT. Results: In total, 314 patients underwent a pretherapeutic HNT, and 98 received therapy initiation without an HNT. The HNT group showed significantly more advanced T stages and UICC classifications (p < 0.001; p = 0.003) and more frequent primary chemo/radiotherapy (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference regarding 5YSR (43 vs. 47 months, p = 0.96) or 5Y-RFS (48 vs. 52 months, p = 0.16). The time between initial diagnosis and therapy initiation was significantly longer when an HNT was performed (38 vs. 20 days, p = 0.008). Conclusions: The HNT group showed significantly more advanced tumor stages, suggesting that even before it became mandatory, it was frequently used for interdisciplinary case discussion in more complex cases. Due to the small number of T3/4 patients in the non-HNT group, a survival advantage of an HNT cannot be validly demonstrated in our study. However, the HNT led to broader patient counselling regarding their therapy options. At the same time, a significant delay in therapy initiation could be seen, suggesting that workflows between diagnosis, HNT presentation, and therapy initiation should be optimized.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".