Timing of postoperative radiation therapy for major salivary gland cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of timing of PORT initiation for major salivary gland cancers on survival is unknown. We aim to examine the impact of PORT timeliness on overall survival (OS) of patients with major salivary gland cancers. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Cancer Database (2004-2017) and included patients with major salivary gland cancer treated with surgery and PORT. RESULTS: In total, 5701 patients were included (3133 [55%] male, 4644 [82%] white, mean age 59 ± 16 years). For the overall cohort, PORT >6 weeks was not associated with decreased OS (1.00 aHR, 95% CI 0.89-1.11). When specifically examining patients with mucoepidermoid carcinoma, PORT >6 weeks was associated with a decreased OS (1.27 aHR, 95% CI 1.01-1.58). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this analysis did not demonstrate a survival benefit for initiating PORT within 6 weeks for patients with salivary gland malignancies. Subset analysis did support initiating PORT within 6 weeks after resection for patients with mucoepidermoid carcinomas. This was not demonstrated in other major salivary gland cancer histologies.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".