Association of Definitive Radiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer and the Incidence of Secondary Head and Neck Cancers: A SEER Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Impact of radiotherapy (RT) for esophageal cancer (EC) patients on the development of secondary head and neck cancer (SHNC) remains equivocal. The objective of this study was to investigate the link between definitive RT used for EC treatment and subsequent SHNC. Methods: This study was conducted using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to collect the data of primary EC patients. Fine-Gray competing risk regression and standardized incidence ratio (SIR) and propensity score matching (PSM) method were used to match SHNC patients with only primary head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. Overall survival (OS) rates were applied by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: In total, 14,158 EC patients from the SEER database were included, of which 9,239 patients (65.3%) received RT and 4,919 patients (34.7%) received no radiation therapy (NRT). After a 12-month latency period, 110 patients (1.2%) in the RT group and 36 patients (0.7%) in the NRT group experienced the development of SHNC. In individuals with primary EC, there was an increased incidence of SHNC compared to the general US population (SIR = 5.95, 95% confidence interval (CI): 5.15 - 6.84). Specifically, the SIR for SHNC was 8.04 (95% CI: 6.78 - 9.47) in the RT group and 3.51 (95% CI: 2.64 - 4.58) in the NRT group. Patients who developed SHNC after RT exhibited significantly lower OS compared to those after NRT. Following PSM, the OS of patients who developed SHNC after RT remained significantly lower than that of matched patients with only primary HNC. Conclusion: An association was discovered between RT for EC and increased long-term risk of SHNC. This work enables radiation oncologists to implement mitigation strategies to reduce the long-term risk of SHNC in patients who have received RT following primary EC.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".