Determination and comparison of radiotherapy dose responses for hepatocellular carcinoma and metastatic colorectal liver tumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to seek radiation dose responses separately for primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and metastatic (MET) colorectal liver tumours to establish tumour control probabilities (TCPs) for radiotherapy (RT) of liver tumours. METHODS: The records of 36 HCC and 26 MET colorectal liver tumour patients were reviewed. The median dose per fraction and total dose were 4 Gy (2-10 Gy) and 52 Gy (29-83 Gy) for the HCC group and 3.6 Gy (2.0-13.0 Gy) and 55 Gy (30-80 Gy) for the MET group, respectively. Median tumour diameter was 6.6 cm (3.0-18.0 cm) and 5.0 cm (1.0-13.0 cm) for the HCC and MET groups, respectively. A logistic TCP model was fitted to the response data for each group using the maximum likelihood method. RESULTS: 50% and 90% probabilities of 6-month local control were estimated to be achievable by 2 Gy per fraction equivalent doses (α/β=10 Gy) of 53 Gy and 84 Gy for the HCC group and 70 Gy and 95 Gy for the MET group, respectively. Actuarial 1-year local control for the HCC and MET groups was 65% (45-85%) and 32% (6-58%), respectively, whereas median time to failure was 543 days (374-711 days) and 183 days (72-294 days), respectively. CONCLUSION: Dose-response relationships were found and modelled for the HCC and MET patient groups, with a higher dose required to control MET tumours. RT offers better local control for HCC than for MET colorectal liver tumours at our institution. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: An improved understanding of radiation dose-response relationships for primary and MET colorectal liver tumours will help inform future dose prescriptions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".