MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895488120 · doi:10.1111/1754-9485.12807

Assessment of tumour response after stereotactic ablative radiation therapy for lung cancer: A prospective quantitative hybrid <sup>18</sup>F‐fluorodeoxyglucose‐positron emission tomography and <scp>CT</scp> perfusion study

2018· article· en· W2895488120 on OpenAlexafffund
Dae‐Myoung Yang, David A. Palma, Alexander V. Louie, Richard Malthaner, Dalilah Fortin, George Rodrigues, Brian Yaremko, Joanna Laba, Stewart Gaede, Andrew Warner, Richard Inculet, Ting‐Yim Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreLawson Health Research InstituteCancer Care OntarioWestern University
FundersOntario Institute for Cancer Research
KeywordsSABR volatility modelMedicineNuclear medicineLung cancerPositron emission tomographyFluorodeoxyglucoseRadiation therapyAblative casePerfusionStandardized uptake valuePerfusion scanningRadiosurgeryRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a guideline‐recommended treatment for inoperable stage I non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but imaging assessment of response after SABR is difficult. The goal of this study was to evaluate imaging‐based biomarkers of tumour response using dynamic 18F‐FDG‐PET and CT perfusion (CTP). Methods Thirty‐one patients with early‐stage NSCLC participated in this prospective correlative study. Each underwent dynamic 18F‐FDG‐PET/CTP studies on a PET/CT scanner pre‐ and 8 weeks post‐SABR. The dynamic 18F‐FDG‐PET measured the tumour SUVmax, SUVmean and the following parameters: K1, k2, k3, k4 and Ki, all using the Johnson–Wilson–Lee kinetic model. CTP quantitatively mapped BF, BV, MTT and PS in tumours and measured largest tumour diameter. Since free‐breathing was allowed during CTP scanning, non‐rigid image registration of CT images was applied to minimize misregistration before generating the CTP functional maps. Differences between pre‐ and post‐SABR imaging‐based parameters were compared. Results Tumour size changed only slightly after SABR (median 26 mm pre‐SABR vs. 23 mm post‐SABR; P = 0.01). However, dynamic 18F‐FDG‐PET and CTP study showed substantial and significant changes in SUVmax, SUVmean, k3, k4 and Ki. Significant decreases were evident in SUVmax (median 6.1 vs. 2.6; P < 0.001), SUVmean (median 2.5 vs. 1.5; P < 0.001), k3 (relative decrease of 52%; P = 0.002), Ki (relative decrease of 27%; P = 0.03), whereas there was an increase in k4 (+367%; P < 0.001). Conclusions Hybrid 18F‐FDG‐PET/CTP allowed the response of NSCLC to SABR to be assessed regarding metabolic and functional parameters. Future studies are needed, with correlation with long‐term outcomes, to evaluate these findings as potential imaging biomarkers of response.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.382 · 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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Imaging and Radiation OncologySame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207