MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054511203 · doi:10.3747/co.v15i3.203

Single versus Multiple Fractions of Palliative Radiotherapy for Bone Metastases: A Randomized Clinical Trial in Iranian Patients

2008· article· en· W2054511203 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Farnaz Amouzegar‐Hashemi, H. Behrouzi, Ali Kazemian, Behnam Zarpak, Philip A. Haddad

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialRadiation therapyPalliative careClinical trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite high-level evidence in the literature, the use of single-fraction radiotherapy (rt) for management of painful bone metastases is not widely practiced in the world, as highlighted in several practice-pattern surveys. Fractionation of palliative rt for bone metastases has not been addressed in Iran, where the most common clinical practice is the use of 30 Gy in 10 fractions. Thus, we decided to perform a randomized clinical trial to compare responses in our patients with those reported in the international literature. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients with multiple painful uncomplicated bone metastases were randomized to 8 Gy in a single fraction or 30 Gy in 10 fractions. Pain was graded by the patients on a scale of 1 to 4 just before and again 1 month after the end of rt. Palliative response was defined as "complete" (pain reduction of 2 grades or more), "partial" (pain reduction of 1 grade or more, but less than 2 grades), and "no response" (pain reduction of less than 1 grade). RESULTS: We randomized 70 patients in this trial (63% women; mean age: 51.6 years). Sites of treatment included spine (n = 27), sacrum or pelvis (n = 25), extremities (n = 14), ribs (n = 3), and sternum (n = 1). Patients graded their pain before rt in a range from 1.8 to 4.0 (mean: 3.2). All patients finished their scheduled course of rt without incident. Unfortunately, 5 patients died less than 1 month after the end of rt, and 7 did not return for any follow-up and could not be contacted. As a result, only 58 patients (31 who received multiple fractions, and 27 who received a single fraction) were available for evaluation of pain 1 month after treatment. At that time, pain was graded in a range from 1.0 to 4.0 (mean: 2.0). The reduction in pain grade ranged from -0.8 to 2.6 (mean: 1.1). We observed 8 (14%) complete responses, 33 (57%) partial responses, and 17 (29%) no responses, for an overall response rate of 71%. The number of responders was 21 (78%) among those who received a single fraction and 20 (65%) among those who received multiple fractions (p > 0.1). The mean reduction in pain was 1.1 in both groups. The 10-fraction group contained a higher number of complete responders (11 of 31 as compared with 6 of 27 in the 1-fraction group)-a result that was not statistically significant. The mean reduction in pain was 1.4 in patients 50 years of age or younger and 0.9 in patients more than 50 years of age (p = 0.01). Of the 8 complete responses, 7 (87.5%) were seen in the patients 50 years of age or younger, and the mean age of patients with a complete response (38.7 years) was significantly lower than that of patients with a partial response or no response (53.7 years, p = 0.017). By logistic regression, patient sex, primary tumour, rt site, and type of treatment (single-fraction vs. multifraction) did not have any significant effect on pain reduction. The only factor with a significant effect was age (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Our trial showed no significant difference in pain relief after palliative radiotherapy with 1 or 10 fractions in Iranian patients. The overall response rate was 71%, similar to results in the international literature. Younger patients responded better.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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 head0.293
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.196 · 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.

Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations46
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207