Preoperative Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Retroperitoneal Sarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has allowed for the administration of high doses to retroperitoneal sarcomas (RSTS) while limiting toxicity to adjacent organs. The purpose of our study is to assess the outcome and toxicities of patients with RSTS treated with neo-adjuvant external beam radiation (EBRT) therapy using IMRT. This is a retrospective study of 21 patients treated with preoperative IMRT for primary or recurrent RSTS between 2005 and 2011. Overall survival (OS) and local recurrence free survival (LRFS) were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method (log-rank test). Acute and chronic toxicities were assessed using the CTCAE v. 3 criteria. The actuarial 2 and 3-year OS was 66% for both and the 5-year OS was 51%. As for LRFS it was 57% at 2 and 3-year and 51% for the 5-year LRFS. Factors predictive for local control were microscopically negative margins (p = 0.022), a median tumor diameter <15 cm (p = 0.007) and pathology of liposarcoma (p = 0.021). Furthermore, patients treated for recurrent disease fared worse (p = 0.04) in local control than patients treated for primary disease. As for OS, patients treated for Grade 1 histology had a better outcome (p 5 0.05). EBRT was generally well tolerated. Acute gastrointestinal (GI) Grade 1 or 2 toxicities occurred in 33% of patients and one patient had unexplained post-radiation Grade 2 fever that resolved after tumor resection. As for chronic toxicities 24% of our patients presented Grade 1 GI toxicity and one patient presented Grade 3 small bowel stenosis not clearly due to radiation toxicity. Despite the location and volume of the tumors treated, preoperative IMRT was very well tolerated in our patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma. Unfortunately local recurrences remain common and dose escalation is to be considered.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".