Clinical outcomes and impact of prognostic factors in resectable oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate clinical outcomes and prognostic factors in non-metastatic oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) patients who underwent surgery with or without adjuvant therapy. Methods: From 2007 and 2018, 116 patients were analyzed. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS), local failure (LF), regional failure (RF), and distant metastases (DM). Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test assessed survival outcomes, while Cox proportional hazard tests analyzed prognostic factors. Results: Median patient age was 53 years, most were smokers (93.5%) and males (62.9%). Predominant subsite was the oral tongue (58.6%). Treatment included surgery alone (16.4%), adjuvant radiotherapy (46.6%), or adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) (37%). The median follow-up time was 45.9 months. There were significant differences between groups in terms of gender (P=0.028) and RT dose (P=0.01). The 3-year OS, DFS, LF, RF and DM for the entire cohort were 60.9%, 55.1%, 20.11%, 8.43%, and 17.13%, respectively. Surgery alone yielded higher 3-year OS (81.4%) than adjuvant RT (70%) or adjuvant CCRT (41.4%), (p=0.012). Adjuvant CCRT correlated with higher LF compared to adjuvant RT and surgery alone groups (p=0.029). Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) impacted OS (HR=2.034, p=0.0498) and DM (HR=3.380, p=0.0132), while higher tumor grade increased DM likelihood (HR=8.477, p=0.0379). Conclusions: This study reports OCSCC patient outcomes in Jordan across different treatment modalities. Adjuvant CCRT correlated with higher LF rates, and LVI impacted OS and DM, aligning with existing OCSCC treatment literature.
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) | 0.001 | 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".