Efficacy of single fraction conventional radiation therapy for painful uncomplicated bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Single fraction radiotherapy (SFRT) and multiple fraction radiotherapy (MFRT) are effective for painful uncomplicated bone metastases and have been shown to be of similar efficacy. The optimal conventional external beam SFRT dose for maximum pain relief remains uncertain. The aim of this systematic review was to comprehensively review and synthesize overall pain response rates by dose. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE(R) (1946 to June 2016 week 3), Embase Classic & Embase (1947 to 2016 week 26) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (May 2016) using keywords such as bone metastases, radiotherapy and single fraction (SF). RESULTS: The 635 results from the search were screened, and ultimately 27 were included for quantitative synthesis. The review indicated that 10 and 6 Gy may produce superior overall response (OR) and complete response (CR) rates compared to 8 Gy, and 6 Gy may result in better partial response (PR) than 8 Gy. However, only a few studies documented doses other than 8 Gy. In trials that directly compared 8 Gy to 4 Gy or 6 Gy, 8 Gy was deemed statistically superior. CONCLUSIONS: 8 Gy SFRT was the most commonly administered dose for palliation of bone metastases supporting its efficacy and safety. Future studies should explore the efficacy of 10 Gy while minimizing its side effects.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".