International patterns of practice in radiotherapy for bone metastases: A review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radiation therapy is the standard treatment for symptomatic bone metastases. Several randomized control trials and meta-analyses have concluded a similar efficacy in pain relief when comparing single versus multiple fraction regimes. However, there continues to be reluctance to conform to published guidelines that recommend a single treatment for the palliation of painful bone metastases. The purpose of this literature review is to summarize international patterns of practice, and to determine if guidelines recommending single fraction treatment have been implemented in clinical care. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central. Search words included, 'bone metastases', 'radiation therapy', 'radiotherapy', 'patterns of practice', and 'dose fractionation'. Both prospective and retrospective studies that investigated the prescription of radiotherapy to bone metastases using actual patient databases were included. Articles were excluded if they investigated hypothetical scenarios. RESULTS: Six hundred and thirteen results were generated from the literature search. Twenty-six articles met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 were Canadian, 8 were European, 6 were American, and 1 was Australian. The use of single fraction radiotherapy (SFRT) ranged from 3% to 75%, but was generally lower in American studies. Choice of fractionation depended on a variety of factors, including patient age, prognosis, site of irradiation, and physician experience. CONCLUSION: Despite the publication of robust randomized control trials, meta-analyses, and clinical practice guidelines recommending the use of a single treatment to palliate uncomplicated bone metastasis, SFRT is internationally underutilized.
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 | 0.017 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".