Palliative Thoracic Radiotherapy for Lung Cancer: What Is the Impact of Total Radiation Dose on Survival?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective symptom palliation can be achieved with low-dose palliative thoracic radiotherapy. In several studies, median survival was not improved with higher doses of radiation. More controversy exists regarding the impact of higher doses on 1- and 2-year survival rates. Therefore, a comparison of survival outcomes after radiotherapy with different biologically equivalent doses (equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions, EQD2) was performed. METHODS: This was a retrospective single-institution study of 232 patients with small or non-small cell lung cancer. Most commonly 2 fractions of 8.5 Gy were prescribed (34%), followed by 10 fractions of 3 Gy or equivalent regimens (30%, EQD2 circa 33 Gy). The highest EQD2 consisted of 45 Gy. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed. RESULTS: Survival was significantly shorter with regimens of intended EQD2 < 33 Gy, e.g., 2 fractions of 8.5 Gy (median 2.5 months compared to 5.0 and 7.5 months with EQD2 of circa 33 and 45 Gy, respectively). The 2-year survival rates were 0%, 7% and 11%, respectively. In 128 prognostically favorable patients, median survival was comparable for the three different dose levels (6 - 8.3 months). The 2-year survival rates were 0%, 10%, and 13%, respectively (not statistically significant). CONCLUSION: Although most of the observed survival differences diminished after exclusion of poor prognosis patients with reduced performance status and/or progressive extrathoracic disease, a slight increase in 2-year survival rates with higher EQD2 cannot be excluded. Because of relatively small improvements, a confirmatory randomized trial in this subgroup would have to include a large number of patients.
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 | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".