Outcomes for potentially Resectable patients undergoing primary chemoradiation treatment for <scp>T1</scp>–<scp>T2 HPV</scp> Negative oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transoral surgical resectability (TOS) is a prognostic factor for patients with HPV+ T1-2 oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) disease undergoing radiotherapy (RT), but it is unclear whether this holds for HPV-negative (HPV-) patients. We aimed to compare outcomes of potential TOS-candidates vs. non-TOS candidates, among patients who underwent RT/CRT for early T-stage HPV- OPSCC. METHODS: For patients treated with RT/CRT for early T-stage HPV-negative OPSCC between 2014 and 2021, pretreatment imaging was reviewed by four head-and-neck surgeons, masked to clinical outcomes, to assess primary-site suitability for TOS. Extracapsular extension (ECE) was assessed by a head-and-neck neuroradiologist. We compared outcomes based on surgical resectability relating to: (1) the primary site tumor alone, and (2) the primary site plus the absence/presence of ECE (overall assessment). Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: Seventy patients were included in the analysis. The primary site was TOS-favorable in 46/70 (66%). Based on the overall assessment, 41/70 (58.6%) were TOS-favorable. The 3-year OS, DSS and PFS for primary site TOS-favorable versus unfavorable were OS: 76.9% versus 37.4%; DSS: 78.1% versus 46.2%, PFS: 69.9% versus 41.3%, (log-rank test = 0.01, 0.03, 0.04; respectively). Additionally, patients with an overall assessment of TOS favorability demonstrated better survival outcomes compared with TOS-unfavorable patients (OS: 77.3% vs. 46.2%; DSS: 78.2% vs. 56.5%, PFS: 72.3% vs. 42.1%, log-rank test = 0.01, 0.04, 0.01; respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients with TOS-favorable HPV-negative early T-stage OPSCC have superior survival outcomes than TOS-unfavorable patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".