MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072632105 · doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2012.12.009

Single fraction conventional external beam radiation therapy for bone metastases: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials

2013· review· en· W2072632105 on OpenAlexafffund
Kristopher Dennis, Leila Makhani, Liang Zeng, Henry Lam, Edward Chow

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiotherapy and Oncology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of OttawaHealth Sciences CentreOttawa Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael and Karyn Goldstein Cancer Research FundJoseph and Silvana Melara Cancer Research Fund
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyRandomized controlled trialClinical trialNuclear medicineRadionuclide therapySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine the optimal dose of single fraction conventional palliative radiation therapy for the relief of pain caused by bone metastases. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ovid version of EMBASE and EMBASE Classic, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials. Pain response data were standardised according to the clinical trial endpoints recommended by the International Bone Metastases Consensus Working Party. RESULTS: From 2696 references we selected 26 articles for review. These described 24 trials that cumulatively randomised 3233 patients to 28 single fraction arms: two arms received 4 Gy, one 5 Gy, one 6 Gy, twenty-two 8 Gy, one 10 Gy and one 8-15 Gy. Eighty-four percent of all patients received 8 Gy and this imbalance precluded formal modelling analyses for different doses. Efficacy endpoints and pain assessment times varied. In general, higher doses produced better pain response rates. The overall (OR) and complete (CR) pain response rates for different doses according to available intention-to-treat (ITT) and assessable patient (A) figures were: 4 Gy [OR(ITT)=23-47%, OR(A)=44-47%, CR(ITT)=15-18%, CR(A)=15-26%], 5 Gy [OR(A)=72%, CR(A)=55%], 6 Gy [OR(ITT&A)=65%, CR(ITT&A)=21%], 8 Gy [OR(ITT)=21-81%, OR(A)=31-93%, CR(ITT)=9-52%, CR(A)=14-57%], 10 Gy [OR(A)=84%, CR(A)=39%]. In trials that directly compared different single fraction doses, 8 Gy was statistically superior to 4 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: 8 Gy was by far the most commonly administered single fraction dose within 24 randomised trials of conventional radiation therapy for the palliation of bone metastases. 8 Gy should be the standard dose against which future treatments are compared due to its reproducible pain response rate and its established safe profile. The optimal dose for the relief of pain remains an open question, however, 8 Gy produced statistically superior pain response rates compared to 4 Gy in trials directly comparing those doses, and in general across all trials doses of 8 Gy or more produced numerically superior pain response rates compared to doses less than 8 Gy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.010
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations73
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

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