MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1597498414 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.2900

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for the treatment of medically inoperable primary renal cell carcinoma: Current evidence and future directions

2015· review· en· W1597498414 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Anand Swaminath, William Chu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreJuravinski Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal cell carcinomaRadiation therapyAblative casePopulationKidney cancerDosingRadiosurgeryRadiologySurgeryOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is steadily rising due to an aging population and more frequent imaging of the abdomen for other medical conditions. While surgery remains the standard of care treatment for localized disease, many patients are unfit due to their advanced age and medical comorbidities. In these patients, an active surveillance strategy or ablative therapies, including radiofrequency/microwave ablation or cryotherapy, can be offered. Such options have limitations particularly with fast growing, or larger tumors. A promising ablative therapy option to consider is stereo-tactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). SBRT refers to high dose, focally ablative radiation delivered in a short time (3-5 fractions), and is safe and effective in many other cancer sites, including lung, liver and spine. SBRT offers potential advantages in the primary kidney cancer setting due to its ablative dosing (overcoming the notion of "radio-resistance"), short treatment duration (important in an elderly population), low toxicity profile (enabling SBRT to treat larger RCCs than other ablative modalities), and non-invasiveness. To date, there is limited long-term prospective data on the outcomes of SBRT in primary RCC. However, early evidence is intriguing with respect to excellent local control and low toxicity; however, most studies vary in terms of technique and radiation dosing used. Well-designed prospective cohort studies with clearly defined and standardized techniques, dosing, follow-up, and integration of quality of life outcomes will be essential to further establish the role of SBRT in management of inoperable, localized RCC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207