Phase II Trial of Palliative Radiotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Liver Metastases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and response of liver radiotherapy (RT) in improving symptoms and quality of life in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or liver metastases (LM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had HCC or LM, unsuitable for or refractory to standard therapies, with an index symptom of pain, abdominal discomfort, nausea, or fatigue. The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary (FACT-Hep), and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) were completed by patients at baseline and each follow-up. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with a clinically significant change at 1 month in the BPI subscale of symptom on average in the past 24 hours. Secondary outcomes were improvement in other BPI subscales and at other time points, FACT-Hep and EORTC QLQ-C30 at each follow-up, and toxicity at 1 week. RESULTS: Forty-one patients (30 men and 11 women) with HCC (n = 21) or LM (n = 20) were accrued. At 1 month, 48% had an improvement in symptom on average in the past 24 hours. Fifty-two percent of patients had improvement in symptom at its worst, 37% at its least, and 33% now. Improvements in the FACT-G and hepatobiliary subscale were seen in 23% and 29% of patients, respectively, at 1 month. There were also improvements in EORTC QLQ-C30 functional (range, 11% to 21%) and symptom (range, 11% to 50%) domains. One patient developed grade 3 nausea at 1 week. CONCLUSION: Improvements in symptoms were observed at 1 month in a substantial proportion of patients. A phase III study of palliative liver RT is planned. [Corrected]
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".