{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025735294117647058, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.680981595092025, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Carcinoma in situ of the larynx.

SURGERY is performed to cure a disease, and its goals are preservation and restoration of function; yet in cancer surgery these goals often must be compromised, unfortunately, because of the actual or potential extent of pathology. The two opposing concepts in cancer surgery—"conservation of function" vs "radical surgery"—pose a dilemma in regard to the management of cancer of the larynx. The thoughts expressed in today's literature concerning the management of laryngeal cancer range from documented evidence of the effectiveness of surgical procedures that barely skirt the gross, obvious tumor, to proof of the need for wide excision and neck dissection merely because of potential node involvement. Another issue which has a direct bearing on this important controversy is the differentiation between, and the significance of, lesions variously designated as dysplasia, acanthosis, dyskeratosis, noninvasive carcinoma, carcinoma?, intraepithelial carcinoma, and carcinoma in situ of the larynx. End-result statistics undoubtedly vary depending on