Evaluation of boost irradiation in patients with intermediate‐risk stage III Wilms tumour with positive lymph nodes only: Results from the SIOP‐WT‐2001 Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of radiotherapy boost omission in patients with intermediate-risk, stage III Wilms tumours (WT) with positive lymph nodes (LN). METHODS AND MATERIALS: All patients with intermediate-risk, stage III (LN positive) WT consecutively registered in the SIOP-WT-2001 study were included in this analysis. Endpoints were 5-year event-free survival (EFS), loco-regional control (LRC) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Between June 2001 and May 2015, 2,569 patients with stage I to III WT after preoperative chemotherapy were registered in the SIOP-WT-2001 study. Five hundred and twenty-three (20%) had stage III disease, of which 113 patients had stage III due to positive LN only. Of those, 101 (89%) received radiotherapy, 36 of which (36%) received, apart from flank irradiation, a boost dose to the LN positive area. Four patients (4%) did not receive any adjuvant radiotherapy. In eight patients information on radiotherapy was not available. With a median follow-up of 71 months, no difference in 5-year EFS (84% vs. 83%, P = 0.77) and LRC (96% vs. 97%, P = 0.91) was observed between patients receiving a radiotherapy boost and those without boost, respectively. Five-year OS, including salvage therapy, was excellent (boost vs. no boost: 97% vs. 95%, P = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Outcome data demonstrate that omission of the radiotherapy boost to the loco-regional positive lymph nodes in patients with intermediate-risk, stage III WT who receive preoperative chemotherapy and postoperative flank irradiation (14.4 Gy) can be considered a safe approach for future SIOP protocols.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".