Survival Analysis and Treatment Strategies for Locally Advanced Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Elderly Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of the study was to analyze the survival and treatment strategies of elderly patients with locally advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical and follow-up data of 278 patients with locally advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma admitted to the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University from January 2012 to December 2019. Results: The 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of the entire group were 86.0%, 50.6%, 40.8%, and 24.2%, respectively. There were a total of 142 cases aged 65 or elder, with 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of 83.9%, 44.3%, 32.3%, and 15.6%, respectively. Among them, the progression-free survival (PFS) of the elderly group receiving radiotherapy dose ≥ 60 Gy was significantly prolonged compared to the < 60 Gy group (although P > 0.05). Comprehensive radiotherapy and chemotherapy showed a significant trend of prolonging overall survival (OS) compared to simple radiotherapy (Breslow = 0.029, log rank = 0.126). χ2 tests were performed for radiotherapy doses < 60 Gy and ≥ 60 Gy, PFS < 12 months and ≥ 12 months, OS < 36 months and ≥ 36 months, respectively. The proportion of PFS ≥ 12 months was significantly higher in the 60 Gy group (P = 0.043), and the proportion of OS ≥ 36 months was higher in the PFS ≥ 12 months group (P = 0.001). Conclusion: The prognosis of locally advanced unresectable lung squamous cell carcinoma is poor, especially in elderly patients. If the patient’s general condition is good, it is recommended to receive radiation therapy with a dose of ≥ 60 Gy and try comprehensive treatment with tolerable toxic side effects.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".