Impact of radiotherapy duration on outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer treated with definitive concurrent radiotherapy and chemotherapy on RTOG trials 8501 and 9405.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
119 Background: Radiotherapy (RT) interruptions have a negative impact on outcomes in many epithelial malignancies treated with definitive RT. The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of RT duration on outcomes in patients (pts) with esophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Methods: Pts treated with definitive CRT on RTOG trials 8501 and 9405 were included. Separate analyses were performed in pts receiving standard dose (SD-CRT; 50 Gy + 5FU + cisplatin) and high dose (HD-CRT; 64.8 Gy + 5FU + cisplatin) CRT. Local (LF) and regional (RF) failure were estimated by the cumulative incidence method. Disease-free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate (UVA) and multivariate (MVA) Cox proportional hazards models were utilized to examine for correlation between RT duration (< vs. ≥ median) with LF, RF, DFS and OS. Results: In the SD-CRT cohort (n=235), 96 pts (41%) had ≥ 1 RT interruption for a median of 3 (IQR 1-6) days. The median RT duration was 39 (IQR 37-43) days. In UVA and MVA, RT duration was not associated with LF, RF, DFS, or OS. Estimated outcome rates are in the table. In the HD-CRT cohort (n=107), 64 pts (60%) had ≥ 1 RT interruption for a median of 3.5 (IQR 2-7.5) days. The median RT duration was 52 (IQR 50-57) days. In UVA, RT duration ≥ 52 days was associated with a 33% reduction in risk of DFS failure (HR=0.66, 95% CI [0.44-0.98], p=0.039) and a 29% reduction in risk of death (HR=0.71, 95% CI [0.48-1.06], p=0.09). When excluding the 25 pts with RT dose < 64.8 Gy, RT duration was not associated with DFS or OS. Conclusions: In pts with esophageal cancer receiving definitive SD-CRT, an association between RT duration and outcomes was not observed. In pts receiving HD-CRT, longer RT duration was associated with improved DFS, which may have been due to a significant number of deaths at RT dose < 64.8 Gy. Supported by NCI U10 grants CA21661, CA180868, CA180822, CA37422. Clinical trial information: NCT00002631. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".