MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155141979 · doi:10.3747/co.v17i1.387

Has the Practice of Radiation Oncology for Locally Advanced and Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Changed in Canada?

2010· article· en· W2155141979 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kathy Han, Andrea Bezjak, Wei Xu, Gabrielle Kane

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerRadiation therapyRegimenStage (stratigraphy)BrachytherapyOncologyInternal medicineAsymptomaticChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Previous surveys have revealed wide variations in the management by radiation oncologists of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Canada. The aim of the present study was to determine the current patterns of practice for locally advanced and metastatic NSCLC among Canadian radiation oncologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was distributed electronically to all members of the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists. Those who treat lung cancer were invited to participate. The survey consisted of three scenarios focusing on areas of nsclc treatment in which the radiotherapy (RT) regimen that provides the best therapeutic ratio is unclear. RESULTS: Replies from 41 respondents were analyzed. For an asymptomatic patient with stage IIIB NSCLC unsuitable for radical treatment, 22% recommended immediate RT, and 78% recommended RT only if the patient were to become symptomatic. Those who believed that immediate RT prolongs survival were more likely to recommend it (p = 0.028). For a patient with a bulky stage IIIB tumour and good performance status, 39% recommended palliative treatment, and 61% recommended radical treatment (84% concurrent vs. 16% sequential chemoradiation at 60-66 Gy in 30-33 fractions). Those who believed that chemoradiation has a greater impact on survival were more likely to recommend it (p < 0.001). For a symptomatic patient with stage IV NSCLC, 54% recommended external-beam RT (EBRT) alone, 41% recommended other modalities (brachytherapy, endobronchial therapy, or chemotherapy) with or without EBRT, and 5% recommended best supportive care. A majority (76%) prescribed 20 Gy in 5 fractions for EBRT. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with previous surveys, more radiation oncologists now offer radical treatment for locally advanced NSCLC. Management of nsclc in Canada may be evidence-based, but perception by radiation oncologists of the treatment's impact on survival also influences treatment decisions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207