MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406690958 · doi:10.1200/jco-24-01829

Postoperative Radiotherapy ± Cetuximab for Intermediate-Risk Head and Neck Cancer

2025· article· en· W4406690958 on OpenAlexaff
Mitchell Machtay, Pedro A. Torres‐Saavedra, Wade L. Thorstad, Phuc Félix Nguyen‐Tan, Lillian L. Siu, F. Christopher Holsinger, Adel K. El‐Naggar, Christine H. Chung, Anthony J. Cmelak, Barbara Burtness, Greg Bednarz, Harry Quon, Stephen Breen, Clement K. Gwede, Adam P. Dicker, Min Yao, Richard C. Jordan, Nancy Y. Lee, Jason W. Chan, Neal Dunlap, Voichita Bar‐Ad, William A. Stokes, Arnab Chakravarti, David J. Sher, Shyam Rao, Jonathan Harris, Sue S. Yom, Quynh‐Thu Le, Daniel W. Bowles, Stephen Breen, Jonathan Harris, Christopher U. Jones, Greg A. Krempl, C.E. Lominska, J. Daniel, Loren K. Mell, Adam Raben, S. Samuels, Sharon A. Spencer, Vinita Takiar, Christopher Wilke, Min Yao, Melissa R. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNRG OncologyEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineCetuximabHead and neck cancerInternal medicineHazard ratioRadiation therapyOncologyCancerHead and neck squamous-cell carcinomaToxicityExact testLarynxSurgeryConfidence intervalColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE Radiotherapy (RT)/cetuximab (C) demonstrated superiority over RT alone for locally advanced squamous head and neck cancer. We tested this in completely resected, intermediate-risk cancer. METHODS Patients had squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) of the oral cavity, oropharynx, or larynx, with one or more risk factors warranting postoperative RT. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to intensity-modulated RT (60-66 Gy) with once-per-week C or RT alone. The primary hypothesis was that RT + C would improve overall survival (OS) in randomly assigned/eligible patients, with a prespecified secondary plan to test this in the human papillomavirus (HPV)–negative subpopulation. Disease-free survival (DFS) and toxicity were secondary end points. OS and DFS were tested via stratified log-rank test; toxicity was compared via Fisher's exact test. RESULTS We enrolled 702 patients from November 2009 to March 2018; 577 were randomly assigned/eligible. Most (63.6%) had oral cavity cancer and most (84.6%) had high epidermal growth factor receptor expression. There were fewer deaths (184) than expected. OS (median follow up, 7.2 years) was not significantly improved (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; one-sided P = .0747; 5-year OS 76.5% v 68.7%), but DFS was (HR, 0.75; one-sided P = .0168; 5-year DFS 71.7% v 63.6%). Benefit of RT + C was only seen in the HPV-negative subpopulation (80.2% of patients in the trial). Grade 3-4 acute toxicity rates were 70.3% (RT + C) versus 39.7% (RT; two-sided P < .0001), mostly skin and/or mucosal effects. Late grade ≥3 toxicity rate was 33.2% (RT + C) versus 29.0% (RT; two-sided P = .3101). There were no grade 5 toxicities in either arm. CONCLUSION RT + C significantly improved DFS, but not OS, with no increase in long-term toxicity, compared with RT alone for resected, intermediate-risk SCCHN. RT + C is an appropriate option for carefully selected patients with HPV-negative disease.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Non-randomized triallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.427 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNon-randomized trial · Other design
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

Citations12
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207