Role of palliative radiotherapy in the management of mural cardiac metastases: who, when and how to treat? A case series of 10 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac metastases (CM), although a rare manifestation of metastatic cancer, are increasing in incidence with the improved prognosis and increased longevity of many patients with cancer. This condition may be life-threatening, especially for bulky rapidly growing tumors. Such cancer presentations may be amenable to palliative radiotherapy to improve symptoms and to prevent further cardiac function decline. Here, we report on our experience with 10 patients with mural CM who received radiotherapy (RT) to the heart with palliative intent. The radiation treatment was given in different clinical situations using different dose and fractionation, and with a variety of outcomes. Palliative RT was a reasonably effective treatment, leading to good radiographic response in five patients who were evaluable for radiologic response. The mean duration of response in responding patients was 6.3 months (range: 3-11 months). This report describing clinical dilemmas around CM radiation therapy summarizes the previous experiences with radiation in treatment of CM and may assist in the considerations of palliative treatment for these patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".