MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The use of stereotactic body radiotherapy as a bridge to liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma.

2016· article· en· W2591011509 on OpenAlexaff
Aisling Barry, Gonzalo Sapisochín, M. Russo, Anthony Brade, James D. Brierley, Joon-Hyung J. Kim, Paul D. Greig, David Grant, Laura A. Dawson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHepatocellular carcinomaLiver transplantationRadiation therapyMilan criteriaLiver diseaseTransplantationRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

418 Background: Approximately 30% of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on the wait list for liver transplant (LT) fall off the transplant list due to progressive HCC. Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) has been used as a “bridge” to LT in patients who are not amenable to RFA or TACE. Methods: Baseline patient characteristics, radiotherapy details and outcomes were reviewed in HCC patients who received SBRT as a bridge to LT. Results: Between July 2004 and Dec. 2014, 601 patients with HCC were listed for LT, of which 400 (66.5%) received bridging therapy. 38 patients, at high risk for HCC progression, were unsuitable for RFA or TACE, receiving SBRT as a bridging therapy. Median SBRT dose was 36Gy in 6 fractions (range 8.5-48Gy in 1 – 6 fractions), including 1 patient who was transplanted after receiving one fraction. 25 of 38 patients (67%) had all lesions treated (median number of lesions 2 {1-8}); 13 patients received SBRT only to the dominant lesion at highest risk of growing or rupturing. At the time of SBRT, 42% had HCC within Milan criteria, and median Child Pugh score was A6 (range A5-B8). 5 patients (13%) dropped off the transplant wait list due to development of metastatic disease (4) and macrovascular invasion with progressive disease (1). Median irradiated HCC volume was 60.5cc (range 7-216cc). Median liver volume (minus HCC) was 1491cc (737-2728cc). Median mean dose to the liver minus HCC was 11.2Gy (2.8-18.6Gy) and median effective liver volume irradiated was 28% (11-66%). 1 patient was admitted 2 months post SBRT with hepatic pain - possibly attributable to SBRT and another patient developed a rib fracture 8 months post SBRT (max rib dose 43Gy in 6 fractions). No other specific SBRT toxicity was noted. The 1-, 3- and 5-year disease free survival and actuarial survival of HCC patients treated with SBRT who went on to have transplant was 93%, 79% and 79%, and 89%, 76% and 76% respectively. Including patients who dropped off the transplant list, the intent-to-treat 1-, 3 - and 5-year survival was 89%, 65% and 65%. There was no reported increase in operative morbidity at the time of transplant in patients treated with SBRT. Conclusions: SBRT can be used safely and effectively in HCC patients as a bridge to liver transplant.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.281
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.136 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis→French-language works237,207→