MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389431901 · doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2023.3781

Quality of Life After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Transoral Robotic Surgery for Oropharynx Cancer

2023· article· en· W4389431901 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer A. Silver, Nathaniel Bouganim, Keith Richardson, Mélissa Henry, Marco A. Mascarella, José L. Ramírez-GarcíaLuna, Nahid Golabi, Alex Mlynarek, Anthony Zeitouni, Michael Hier, Derin Çağlar, Khashayar Esfahani, Nader Sadeghi

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransoral robotic surgeryQuality of life (healthcare)Head and neck cancerDysphagiaCancerInternal medicineNeck dissectionSurgeryOncologyPhysical therapyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Efforts are underway to deintensified treatment protocols for patients with human papillomavirus virus-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV-OPSCC) to achieve similar excellent oncologic outcomes while reducing treatment-related adverse effects. Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) as primary treatment often requires adjuvant therapy due to the high incidence of nodal metastasis. Treatment with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by TORS and neck dissection (NECTORS), reserving radiation therapy for salvage, yields excellent oncologic outcomes. Objective: To assess patient-reported quality of life (QOL) and functional outcomes among patients with HPV-OPSCC who undergo NECTORS. Design, Settings, and Participants: This was a multicenter prospective cohort study of patients with HPV-OPSCC treated with the NECTORS protocol in 2017 to 2022. Consecutive patients with stage III or IVa HPV-OPSCC treated with NECTORS in 2017 to 2022 who had completed the primary QOL questionnaire at baseline and at least once during the 24-month follow-up period were included. Ninety-four patients were eligible, and 67 were included in the analyses. Outcome Measures: QOL questionnaires at baseline, and at month 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 posttreatment. Global score on the 30-item European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) was the primary outcome; the head and neck extension module (EORTC QLQ-HN35); the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory for dysphagia-related QOL; and the Decision Regret Scale were also used. Paired t tests assessed change between the baseline and 12- or 24-month patient-reported outcomes. Results: Among the study population of 67 patients (median [range] age, 63 [58-67] years; 54 [80.6%] male) with HPV-OPSCC, the most frequent cancer subsites were palatine tonsil (41 [61%]) and base of tongue (26 [39%]); none required adjuvant RT. Global QOL at 24 months improved compared with baseline (mean difference, 9.49; 95% CI, 2.45 to 16.53). All EORTC QLQ-C30 functional scores returned to baseline or improved within 3 to 6 months posttreatment and remained stable at 24 months. EORTC QLQ-HN35 symptom scale scores improved or were stable at 24 months. The MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory scores demonstrated no significant difference between baseline and month 12 for global scores (mean difference, 6.15; 95% CI, -4.18 to 16.49) and composite scores (mean difference, 2.73; 95% CI, -1.62 to 7.09). Median (range) score on the Decision Regret Scale was 5 of 100 (0-30), representing mild overall regret. Conclusion and Relevance: The findings of this multicenter cohort study indicate that use of the NECTORS protocol is associated with excellent QOL outcomes. QOL measures returned to baseline levels or were better than baseline, which represents positive outcomes for patients with HPV-OPSCC who undergo this treatment regimen.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck SurgerySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207