TH‐C‐213AB‐06: Risk of Radiation‐Induced Cardiotoxicity and Secondary Cancers in Hodgkin's Lymphoma Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the potential reduction of risk of late radiation‐ induced effects for young patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) as compared to 3D conformal involved‐field photon radiotherapy. The late effects considered were cardiac mortality and secondary cancer in the lungs and breasts (for female patients). Methods: Patient data was acquired for eleven patients who were under thirty years of age and were treated with radiotherapy for Hodgkin's lymphoma in Quebec in 2010. The original CT simulation images were used to re‐plan the patients with IMPT using commercially‐available treatment planning software. The contours of the critical organs of interest were reviewed for each patient by a physician and modified when necessary for consistency. The dose‐volume matrices of the original photon plans and the new proton plans were analyzed using radiobiological models to assess the risk of late effects. The relative seriality model was utilized to predict excess risk of fatal cardiotoxicity. The organ equivalent dose concept was utilized in conjunction with a modified linear quadratic model to predict the excess absolute risk for induction of lung cancer and breast cancer. Parameters for each model were derived from retrospective studies in the literature. Results: Mean excess risk of fatal cardiotoxicity was 0.9% for photon plans and 0.6% for proton plans. Mean excess absolute risk of developing lung cancer thirty years post‐treatment was 11.9/10,000 patients per year (PY) for photons and 6.9/10,000 PY for protons. Mean excess absolute risk of developing breast cancer thirty years post‐treatment was 6.0/10,000 PY for photons and 2.1/10,000 PY for protons. Conclusions: IMPT has the potential to reduce the risk of fatal, radiation‐induced late cardiotoxicity as well as the risk of radiation‐induced secondary cancers in the lungs and breasts of young patients receiving radiotherapy for Hodgkin's lymphoma. This work has been funded in part by a grant from the Fonds de recherche Santé Quebec (FRSQ).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".