The Role of Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Liver Metastases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiotherapy has historically played a minor role in the treatment of patients with unresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer and other malignancies. This can be attributed chiefly to the low tolerance of the whole liver to radiation. High-precision radiotherapy planning techniques have allowed much higher doses of radiation to be delivered safely to focal liver metastases, while sparing most of the normal liver. When combined with hepatic arterial fluorodeoxyuridine, high-dose focal liver radiotherapy is associated with excellent response rates, local control, and survival in patients with unresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Radiotherapy, with and without concurrent systemic chemotherapy, has also been used with encouraging outcomes for patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer and other cancers. There appears to be a radiation dose response for liver metastases; tumors treated with doses of 70 Gy or greater are likelier to have durable local control. Advancements in tumor imaging, in radiotherapy techniques that will allow the safe delivery of higher doses of radiation, and in novel tumor radiation sensitizers and normal tissue radioprotectors should substantially improve the outcome of patients with unresectable liver metastases treated with radiotherapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".