MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950580054 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2019.00543

A Review of Ongoing Trials of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for Oligometastatic Cancers: Where Will the Evidence Lead?

2019· review· en· W2950580054 on OpenAlexaff
Faiez Al-Shafa, Andrew Arifin, George Rodrigues, David A. Palma, Alexander V. Louie

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreCancer Care Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSABR volatility modelMedicineContext (archaeology)Clinical trialRandomized controlled trialProstate cancerOncologyCancerInternal medicineRadiosurgeryRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The oligometastatic state is a proposed entity between localized cancer and widely metastatic disease, comprising an intermediate subset of metastatic cancer patients. Most data to support locally-directed treatment, such as stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), for oligometastases are from retrospective institutional reports. Following the success of a recently completed and reported phase II trial demonstrating important clinical outcomes, herein we review the current landscape of ongoing clinical trials in this context. Materials and methods: A review of currently activated and registered clinical trials was performed using the clinicaltrials.gov database from inception to February 2019. A search of actively recruiting trials, using the key words oligometastases, SABR, and various related terms was performed. Search results were independently reviewed by 2 investigators, with discrepancies settled by a third. Data abstracted from identified studies included study type, primary disease site, oncologic endpoints, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Results: Of the initial 216 entries identified, 64 met our review eligibility criteria after full-text review. The most common study type was a Phase II clinical trial (n=35, 55%) with other study designs ranging from observational registry trials to Phase III randomized controlled trials. A minority of trials were randomized in design (n=17, 27%). While most studies allowed for metastases from multiple primary disease sites (n=22, 34%), the most common was prostate (n=13, 15%), followed by breast, gastrointestinal, non-small cell lung cancer and renal (n=6, 9% each). In studies with a solitary target site, the most common was liver (n=6, 9%) followed by lung (n=3, 5%). The most common primary endpoints were progression-free survival (n=20, 31%) and toxicity (n=10, 16%). A combined strategy of systemic therapy and SABR was an emerging theme (n=23, 36%), with more recent studies specifically evaluating SABR and immunotherapy (n=9, 14%). Conclusion: The safety and efficacy of SABR as oligometastasis-directed treatment is increasingly being evaluated within prospective clinical trials. These data are awaited to compliment the abundance of existing observational studies and to guide clinical decision-making.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.006
Bibliometrics0.0160.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations63
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207