MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Radiotherapy as a bridge to liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

2009· article· en· W2135727892 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplant International · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHepatocellular carcinomaLiver transplantationRadiation therapyNauseaTransplantationInternal medicineLiver functionGastroenterologyUrologySurgeryNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

About 20% of the patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are listed for liver transplantation (LT) are eventually delisted as a result of local tumor progression. Herein, we report our experience with conformal radiotherapy (CRT) as a novel bridge to LT. From July 2006 to August 2008, CRT was delivered in five or six fractions to patients with HCC listed for LT in whom either prior local therapies had failed or those not suitable for standard local therapies because of poor liver function or anatomic issues. Radiotherapy (RT) volumes and doses were individualized to spare the uninvolved liver with the goal of stabilizing the most aggressive HCC(s) in an attempt to reduce the chance of delisting as a result of tumor progression. Ten patients with tumor diameters ranging from 25 to 108 mm were treated. Eight out of 10 tumors were beyond Milan criteria. The median age was 55 (range 36-64). Seventy percent of the patients were male subjects. The median medical MELD score was 11 (range 9-17). The median irradiated HCC volume was 79 cc (range 15-798 cc). The median RT delivered dose was 33 Gy (range 8.5-54 Gy), in one to six fractions. The median dose to the uninvolved liver was 13.3 Gy (range 1.8-16.5). Nine patients completed their CRT as planned and one patient was transplanted after the first fraction. The treatment was well tolerated: Grade 1 nausea was reported in three patients, the platelet count decreased from 154 to 98 in one patient, and there were no other complications. No treated tumors progressed during or after the treatment. Two tumors remained stable; the rest had 10-50% regression, which was sustained on follow-up imaging. The median follow up was 14 months (range 3-20). Local tumor control was achieved in all treated tumors.Two patients were delisted as a result of cancer progression outside the treated field (one in the context of systemic metastases; yet another with progression of other untreated HCC in the liver). Three patients are still waiting for transplantation. Five patients underwent LT with no complications attributable to the CRT. Explant pathology, available for five patients, showed tumor necrosis and fibrosis with sparing of the untreated parenchyma. All transplanted patients treated with CRT are cancer-free. CRT is a safe and efficacious local bridging therapy for patients with advanced HCC who are on the waiting list for LT. Further studies are warranted to compare the effectiveness of CRT to other local treatment regimens for HCC.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.231 · 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