MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2922356273 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.278

A279 A NOVEL TECHNIQUE AND INDICATION FOR EUS-GUIDED FIDUCIAL IMPLANTATION

2019· article· en· W2922356273 on OpenAlexaff
Jane Quinlan, Kristopher Dennis, F Al Shamji, Avijit Chatterjee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFiducial markerRadiation therapyRadiologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Luminal gastrointestinal cancers are the fourth most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Radiotherapy is a mainstay treatment for luminal GI cancers in neoadjuvant, adjuvant, radical, and palliative settings. Placement of fiducials to help guide radiotherapy in pancreatic, breast, and prostate cancer is well established. The role of fiducial implantation in managing gastric cancers is still under investigation. Gastric cancers are often difficult to delineate on CT, therefore fiducial markers can potentially improve the accuracy of tumor target delineation and allow for sparing of nearby uninvolved tissues, optimizing the therapeutic index. This case report outlines a novel technique for EUS-guided fiducial implantation to assist treatment planning CTs (TPCTs) for the improved delivery of image-guided radiotherapy in gastric cancer. A literature review using PUBMED was conducted to help contextualize this novel technique. This case involves a 58-year-old male, ECOG 3 from numerous comorbidities with a T3 gastric adenocarcinoma at the incisura and prominent mediastinal lymph nodes, deemed unfit for surgery or systemic chemotherapy. Under EUS and fluoroscopic guidance, 4 fiducials were implanted submucosally around the inoperable gastric mass found at the incisura using a novel technique. 1.5cc of sterile saline was initially injected submucosally using a 19G FNA needle to create a bleb into which a 3 x 0.7 mm solid platinum fiducial was flushed using 1cc of saline. Following successful implantation, the patient underwent non-contrast-enhanced, free-breathing and 4D treatment planning CT scans to guide radiotherapy. The fiducials were successfully implanted at the margins of the gastric mass under EUS and fluoroscopy guidance. There were no immediate (<24 hours) or delayed (2–21 days) complications. The gastric mass was undetectable on CT scan prior to implantation of the fiducials. On the post-fiducial treatment planning CT, all 4 fiducials were visible, thereby delineating the gastric mass. The fiducials could also be seen on the cone-beam CT scans, which are taken daily prior to treatment and generally have poor soft-tissue resolution. The existing literature on the technical feasibility, safety, and efficacy of EUS-guided fiducial implants in aiding image-guided radiotherapy for gastric cancers is limited. This case report details the technical feasibility of placing fiducials under EUS guidance to delineate a gastric mass, and the potential efficacy of identifying the gastric mass on CT scan post implantation. This case will lay the groundwork for future investigations to explore differences in radiotherapy target volumes and clinical outcomes with EUS-guided fiducial implants. EUS-guided fiducial implants represent a novel technique in the delivery of image-guided radiotherapy for gastric cancers. None

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→