Preliminary Results of Proton-Beam Therapy for Stage iii Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We conducted a preliminary retrospective evaluation of the efficacy and toxicity of proton-beam therapy (pbt) for stage iii non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: Between January 2009 and August 2013, 27 patients (26 men, 1 woman) with stage iii non-small-cell lung cancer underwent pbt. The relative biologic effectiveness value of the proton beam was defined as 1.1. The beam energy and spread-out Bragg peak were fine-tuned such that the 90% isodose volume of the prescribed dose encompassed the planning target volume. Of the 27 patients, 11 underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cumulative survival curves were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Treatment toxicities were evaluated using version 4 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. RESULTS: Median age of the patients was 72 years (range: 57-91 years), and median follow-up was 15.4 months (range: 7.8-36.9 months). Clinical stage was iiia in 14 patients (52%) and iiib in 13 (48%). The median dose of pbt was 77 GyE (range: 66-86.4 GyE). The overall survival rate in the cohort was 92.3% at 1 year and 51.1% at 2 years. Locoregional failure occurred in 7 patients, and distant metastasis, in 10. In 2 patients, initial failure was both locoregional and distant. The 1-year and 2-year rates of local control were 68.1% and 36.4% respectively. The 1-year and 2-year rates of progression-free survival were 39.9% and 21.4% respectively. Two patients experienced grade 3 pneumonitis. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with stage iii non-small-cell lung cancer, pbt can be an effective and safe treatment option.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".