Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) for Large Renal Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma represents a clinical scenario where aggressive treatment to the primary tumor (ie, cytoreductive nephrectomy) is associated with a survival benefit. We hypothesized that stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) could be a safe alternative local modality for inoperable metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients. Our study objectives were to report on technical considerations, toxicity, and clinical outcomes of our institutional experience with renal SABR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent renal SABR at our institution between January 2008 and June 2015 were reviewed. Toxicity was quantified using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Radiographic response was evaluated using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors classification. Median overall survival and follow-up were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier and reverse Kaplan-Meier methods, respectively. RESULTS: We identified 11 patients that met study criteria. SABR was directed to the tumor or whole kidney in 5 fractions to a dose of 25 to 40 Gy. Median tumor diameter and planning target volume were 9.5 cm (range, 7.5 to 24.4) and 819.3 cm (range, 313.4 to 5704.3), respectively. Median follow-up was 3.9 years (95% confidence interval, 0.6-4.9). Five cases of grade 1 toxicity were reported. In the patient with the largest target, grade 2 diarrhea and probable grade 3 nausea were observed. In patients with available follow-up imaging (7/11), stable disease (n=5), partial response (n=1), and progressive disease (n=1) were observed. Median overall survival was 20.4 months (95% confidence interval, 2.30-N/A). CONCLUSIONS: In this small cohort, renal SABR was delivered with minimal toxicity. A prospective study is underway at our institution to determine maximum tolerable and optimal dosing (NCT02264548).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".