MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010282620 · doi:10.5430/jst.v4n4p25

Intraoperative radiation therapy for high risk soft tissue sarcoma resection margins

2014· article· en· W2010282620 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jacqueline Oxenberg, H Malhotra, Kristopher Attwood, John M. Kane, Kilian Salerno

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Solid Tumors · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntraoperative radiation therapySoft tissue sarcomaSoft tissueRadiation therapySurgerySarcomaLiposarcomaBrachytherapyRetrospective cohort studyChemotherapyRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objectives: External beam radiation (EBRT) can reduce local recurrence (LR) of soft tissue sarcomas (STS). The addition of intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) can deliver high dose radiation boost to anticipated “high risk” margins while sparing adjacent structures. Methods: A retrospective review (2004-2012) was performed of STS treated with surgical resection and IORT using HDR brachytherapy for anticipated close/positive margins. Results: Twenty-four patients underwent 25 resections with IORT (1 patient had 2 separate recurrences). Tumors were primary in 72%, deep in 96% and intermediate/high grade in 84%. Tumor locations were extremity (44%), retroperitoneal (40%), truncal (12%) and neck (4%). Common histologies included pleomorphic (32%), liposarcoma (12%) and myxofibrosarcoma (12%). Neoadjuvantly, 3 received chemotherapy and 13 received EBRT (median 50Gy; range 45-54). Median IORT dose was 12Gy (range 10-17.5). Margins were microscopically positive in 20%; none were grossly positive. Adjuvantly, 5 received EBRT (median 46Gy, range 45-50) and 2 received chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 20.1 months (range 2.7-96.4). No recurrences occurred at the IORT sites. Two-year LR free survival was 60.8% and disease specific survival was 84%. Conclusion: Use of IORT at time of STS resection was effective at preventing LR at the treated site despite “high risk” features.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Solid TumorsSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207