Practice Patterns in Management of Low‐ to Intermediate‐Grade Salivary Gland Carcinoma: A Multi‐Institutional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objectives To characterize practice patterns and outcomes in the management of low‐ and intermediate‐grade salivary gland carcinoma prior to the existence of treatment guidelines. Methods Analysis of a registry of patients who underwent parotid and submandibular gland resections for low‐and intermediate‐grade carcinomas between 2010 and 2019. Results Of all 786 patients included in the study, 726 (92%) had preoperative imaging and 653 (83%) had preoperative biopsy. Of the 729 patients with parotid gland cancer, the majority underwent superficial ( n = 384, 53%) or total ( n = 254, 35%) parotidectomy. In patients with facial nerve preservation, total parotidectomy was associated with a significant increase in transient facial weakness (72/177 (41%) vs. 82/311 (26%), RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50–0.84, p < 0.05) and permanent facial nerve weakness (23/176 (13%) vs. 16/301 (5%), RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22–0.75, p < 0.05) compared to superficial parotidectomy. Adjuvant radiation therapy ( RT ) was delivered to 285 (36%) patients. The proportion of patients receiving adjuvant RT declined significantly over the time period from 2015 to 2019 compared to 2010 to 2014 at 162/504 (32%) and 123/282 (44%), respectively ( RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61–0.89, p < 0.05). When comparing the time periods from 2015 to 2019 and 2010 to 2014, there was no significant difference in local control rates ( RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.26–1.04, p = 0.06) or regional control rates ( RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.26–2.13, p = 0.58). Conclusions Management of low‐ and intermediate‐grade salivary cancer from 2010 to 2019 was variable, which is expected given the rarity and heterogeneity of the disease and the lack of treatment guidelines prior to 2021. Most patients with parotid malignancies underwent superficial or total parotidectomy. The extent of parotidectomy had an impact on facial nerve function outcomes. Delivery of adjuvant radiation trended down with time. The data presented here will support dissemination of the guidelines and provide data that could inform future trials. Level of Evidence 2b.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".