MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2980267785 · doi:10.36076/ppj/2017.7.e1053

The Hopeless Case? Palliative Cryoablation andCementoplasty Procedures for Palliation ofLarge Pelvic Bone Metastases

2017· article· en· W2980267785 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevuePain Physician · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueManagement of metastatic bone disease
Établissements canadiensVancouver General Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePelvisPalliative careCryoablationPercutaneousSurgeryRadiologyGeneral surgeryNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Metastases to the bone are common in cancer patients, and it has been estimated that up to 50% of patients with pelvic bone metastases will not achieve adequate pain control with medications alone. This has led to a paradigm shift over recent years towards the use and development of minimally invasive image-guided treatment options for palliation of bony metastases. Despite these developments, large metastatic lesions are still often considered to be "hopeless cases" that would garner little to no benefit from image-guided intervention. This study is the first large series to describe the novel use of combination percutaneous cryoablation and cementoplasty for palliation of such large metastases to the pelvis. OBJECTIVES: We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of image-guided percutaneous cryoablation and cementoplasty for palliation of large pelvic bone metastases. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective analysis was approved by our institutional review board. This study was conducted from January 2013 to December 2016, where consecutive patients referred for pain management of large pelvic bone metastases underwent combination percutaneous cryoablation and cementoplasty. SETTING: This study took place at a tertiary care center after patients were referred following formal review from a multidisciplinary conference, which was comprised of interventional radiologists, pain management and palliative care physicians, radiation and medical oncologists, and when available, anesthesiologists. METHODS: Forty-eight patients (36 men and 12 women) with a mean cohort age of 77.5 years (range: 52 - 89 years) were referred from the multidisciplinary conference for palliation of pelvic bone metastases. The inclusion criteria included patients with metastases greater or equal to 5.0 cm and significant pain refractory to conventional pain management regimens. All of the patients were deemed not to be surgical candidates. Mean pain scores were collected at numerous time-points along with procedural technical success rates and complication rates. RESULTS: Combination cryoablation and cementoplasty was performed on 48 consecutively referred patients with a 100% technical success rate and no immediate complications. The pain levels demonstrated a significant decrease (P < 0.001) following intervention, with mean pain scores of 7.9 (range: 5 - 10) and 1.2 (range: 0 - 7) throughout the week prior to intervention and at 24 hours post-intervention, respectively. The post-intervention pain scores remained stable at 1 to 9 weeks follow-up (mean: 4.1 weeks). Three patents (6.3%) reported no change in pain following the intervention; however, no patients reported worsened pain. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this study include its retrospective nature and the length of follow-up, which was often restricted given the life expectancy of our patient cohort. CONCLUSION: Combination cryoablation and cementoplasty is a novel and efficacious treatment option for palliation of large pelvic bone metastases. Marked improvements in pain, as well as mobility and quality of life, are often attainable. KEY WORDS: Pain, palliative care, palliation, percutaneous, cryoablation, cementoplasty, metastases, pelvis, interventional radiology, thermal ablation.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,677
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,924

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,031
Tête enseignante GPT0,330
Écart entre enseignants0,299 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle