MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2517747943 · doi:10.1016/s0167-8140(16)33643-x

244: Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Node Positive Cutaneous Melanoma

2016· article· en· W2517747943 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Mathen, Brock Debenham, Jon-Paul Voroney, Robyn Banerjee

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiotherapy and Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyMelanomaNode (physics)DermatologyOncologyRadiologyCancer researchPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: A variety of dose/fractionation schemes are used for adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) in node positive (Stage III) melanoma.A prospective randomized study of adjuvant nodal radiation for high-risk Stage III melanoma used 2.4 Gy x 20 fractions in four weeks.The largest retrospective series to date used a hypofractionated scheme of 6 Gy x 5 fractions over 2.5 weeks.No randomized comparison of these has been reported.At our institution, either fractionation is used based on physician and patient preference.We sought to compare clinical outcomes using hypofractionated and conventional radiotherapy for node positive melanoma.Methods and Materials: Patients who received adjuvant radiation for node positive melanoma between 2009 and 2014 were included.Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival (OS) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were obtained.Logistic regression was used to explore the association between patient, tumour and treatment factors for the outcomes of these patients.Results: Forty-one patients were included in the final analysis.Median follow up was two years.Sixty-one percent of patients were treated with hypofractionated radiotherapy (6 Gy x 5 for 23 patients and 6 Gy x 6 for two patients) and the remainder received conventional fractionation 40-60 Gy in 15-30 fractions).Treatment sites included the axilla (39%), groin (29%) and head/neck (32%).No significant differences in stage, number of involved nodes, largest node, nodal location, or extracapsular extension were present between the two groups.Comparing the hypofractionated versus conventional groups, there was no significant difference in regional control (76 versus 84%), distant control (48 versus 44%) or overall survival (67 versus 62%).44% were referred to a specialty clinic for management of lymphedema in the hypofractionated group versus 19% in the conventional group (HR 2.56, 95% CI 0.85-7.68,p = 0.094).Conclusions: Hypofractionated and conventional radiotherapy results in similar rates of disease control at two years in node positive melanoma.A trend towards higher referrals for lymphedema management was observed in the hypofractionated group.Future work should prospectively compare outcomes and toxicity for giving patients best advice for hypofractionation compared with standard treatment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueRadiotherapy and OncologySame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207