MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Implantable marker to facilitate use of hypofractionated radiation in early breast cancer.

2015· article· en· W2589265581 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Cross, Joe Ross, Scott Jones, Arnold B. Smith, Thadeus Beck

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerRadiation therapyMastectomyRadiation treatment planningDose fractionationCancerSurgeryRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

38 Background: Shorter courses of radiation therapy have advantages for patients and could result in significant cost savings for the healthcare system. The British and Canadian experience with hypo-fractionated regimens have shown that survival rates in appropriately selected patients is equivalent to other methods. However, adoption of these techniques has been hindered by fear of potential complications such as poor cosmetic outcomes. By improving targeting of the surgical tumor bed, an increased use of "field in field" planning helps to decrease "hot spots" commonly related to toxicities. This could potentially assist with increased use of hypo-fractionated regimens in a reliable, safe and cost-effective manner. To determine the ability of a new surgical implant marker to facilitate use of hypofractionated radiation delivery, we prospectively studied the radiation regimens delivered to 100 patients implanted with the device in our community-based practice. Methods: Over a 36 month period, 110 volumetric tissue markers were surgically implanted at the tumor bed excision site in 109 patients during partial mastectomy (PM). Routine CT imaging of the breast was performed for treatment planning and the marker was rated for visibility and its utility in delineating the target region. Radiation treatment regimens were recorded and reported. A cost analysis was also performed. Results: In all patients, the marker was easily visible and in 95.7% of cases, it was found to be useful during radiation treatment planning for RT target delineation. 36.8% of patients received conventional full-course whole breast irradiation plus boost, 56.6% received hypo-fractionation plus boost, and 4.3% received accelerated partial breast irradiation. With routine use of the implant, there was a marked increase in the use of hypo-fractionated regimens, resulting in a 25% cost savings per patient. Conclusions: This 3-dimensional implant was easily visible and particularly useful in targeting the tumor bed when implanted during PM. With routine use of the device we observed an unanticipated increased use of accelerated radiation protocols, a net cost savings in patients' treatment and a significant improvement in cosmetic outcomes.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.183
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→