Comparison of Single Versus Multifraction Radiotherapy in Palliation of Painful Bone Metastases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bone is a common site of dissemination in advanced cancer accounting for one-third of all distant metastases. Various fractionation schedules of radiotherapy have been used for palliation of bone metastases. The aim of this study was to compare three schedules of external radiation therapy (8 Gy single session versus 20 Gy/5 fractions versus 30 Gy/10 fractions) for palliative management of bone metastases. METHODS: In the present study, 60 patients of bone metastases from any primary site were enrolled and randomly divided into three groups of 20 patients each by draw of lots. These patients received palliative external beam radiation therapy to the involved site. Patients were given 8 Gy single session, 20 Gy/5 fractions/1 week and 30 Gy/10 fractions/2 weeks in groups I, II and III, respectively. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with overall pain relief was 80% in group I, 75% in group II and 85% in group III (P = 0.7). The number of patients with complete pain relief was 4 (20%) in each group. Maximum patients got pain relief at 4 weeks post-radiotherapy. The number of patients with improved performance status was 4 (20%) in group II and 2 (10%) each in groups I and III (P = 0.5). Thirteen (65%) patients in each of the groups had decreased analgesic requirement at 2-month follow-up. Retreatment rate was more in the single fraction (20%) compared to only 5% in group II and none in the group III (P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: From the present study we conclude that 8 Gy single fraction is as effective as multifraction radiotherapy for the palliation of painful bone metastases. However, for a center like ours being the only Government Tertiary Cancer Care Centre in the State, general consensus drawn after this study, recommends external radiation therapy 20 Gy/5 fraction regimen to be an appropriate means of palliation of painful bone metastases.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".