Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Head & Neckarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Head & Neck
Article . 2006 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
Head & Neck
Article . 2006
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Organ preservation for advanced laryngeal carcinoma

Authors: Robert L. Foote; Yolanda I. Garces; Scott H. Okuno; Paul D. Brown; R. Tyler Foote; Scott E. Strome;

Organ preservation for advanced laryngeal carcinoma

Abstract

AbstractBackground.Inclusion of patients with mobile vocal cords on larynx preservation trials may lead to overstatement of larynx preservation (LPR) and survival (OS) rates.Methods.This is a retrospective review of patients at our institution who would have been eligible for the Department of Veterans Affairs Laryngeal Cancer Study Group (VA) and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/Head and Neck Intergroup (RTOG 91‐11) clinical trials. No laryngeal conservation procedure could be performed in patients with mobile vocal cords.Results.One hundred one patients at our institution would have been eligible for the VA trial. The 2‐year OS was 76% for total laryngectomy and 90% for radiotherapy patients (p = .28) compared with 68% reported for the VA trial. Seventy‐three patients at our institution would have been eligible for the RTOG 91‐11 trial. The 5‐year OS was 52% for total laryngectomy and 63% for radiotherapy patients (p = .18) compared with 55% reported for the RTOG 91‐11 trial. Radiotherapy patients had an LPR of 80% (VA trial) and 86% (RTOG 91‐11 trial).Conclusion.It is unlikely that inclusion of patients with mobile vocal cords had a significant impact on OS or LPR for the VA and RTOG 91‐11 larynx preservation trials. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck, 2006

Related Organizations
Keywords

Male, Laryngectomy, Radiotherapy Dosage, Middle Aged, Survival Analysis, Treatment Outcome, Carcinoma, Squamous Cell, Humans, Female, Radiotherapy, Adjuvant, Karnofsky Performance Status, Larynx, Laryngeal Neoplasms, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Retrospective Studies

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    11
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
11
Average
Average
Top 10%
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research
Upload OA version
Are you the author? Do you have the OA version of this publication?