Patient-reported symptoms and performance status before palliative radiotherapy in geriatric cancer patients (octogenarians)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate differences in baseline parameters including performance status and self-reported symptom burden between geriatric and non-geriatric cancer patients, and to assess the hypothesis that these factors might predispose older patients to incomplete radiotherapy and short survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective comparison of geriatric and non-geriatric patients treated with palliative radiotherapy (age ⩾80 years and <80 years, respectively). Between 2013 and 2015, 26 geriatric and 76 non-geriatric patients were treated. The Edmonton symptom assessment system (ESAS) was employed to document baseline symptoms. RESULTS: Most patients received radiotherapy for bone metastases, commonly 5-10 fractions. Geriatric patients had significantly less pain at rest and depression. No strong trends towards higher symptom burden in older patients emerged for any of the items. Overall survival was similar in the two subgroups with different age and also in a separate age-stratified analysis of patients with performance status >2. Relatively few patients were irradiated in the terminal stage of disease, defined as final 30 days of life (8% in geriatric and 12% in other patients, p = 0.73). A higher number of geriatric patients failed to complete their prescribed course of radiotherapy (14 vs. 3%, p = 0.08), despite lower rates of prescription of more than 10 fractions in this group (15 vs. 23%, p > 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: These data support utilization of palliative radiotherapy irrespective of age. However, care should be taken in assigning the right fractionation regimen in order to avoid lengthy treatment courses when survival is limited, such as in patients with performance status >2.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".