MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Single-fraction stereotactic versus standard conventional multifraction radiation for predominantly non-spine bone metastases: A randomized phase II trial.

2019· article· en· W2952770461 on OpenAlexaff
Quynh Nguyen, Edward Chow, Stephen G. Chun, Zhongxing Liao, R.Z. Fnu, James W. Welsh, Stephen M. Hahn, Clifton D. Fuller, Bryan S. Moon, Justin E. Bird, Robert L. Satcher, Patrick P. Lin, Melenda Jeter, Michael S. O’Reilly, Valerae O. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDose fractionationClinical endpointRadiation therapyBrief Pain InventoryRandomized controlled trialSurgeryNuclear medicineChronic pain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

11578 Background: There lacks a consensus as to the optimal radiotherapy dose and fractionation schedule for treating bone metastases. We assessed the relative efficacy of single high-dose stereotactic radiation therapy (SBRT) versus standard multifraction radiation therapy (MFRT) for alleviation of pain in patients with mostly non-spine bone metastases. Methods: This prospective, randomized, single-institution phase II non-inferiority trial enrolled patients with radiologically confirmed painful bone metastases from September 2014 through June 2018. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either single-fraction SBRT (12 Gy for ≥4-cm lesions or 16 Gy for < 4-cm lesions) versus MFRT to 30 Gy in 10 fractions. Results: The primary endpoint was pain response, defined by international consensus criteria as a combination of pain score and analgesic use (daily morphine-equivalent dose [MED]). Failure of pain response was defined as worsening pain score (≥2 points on a 0-to-10 scale), an increase in morphine-equivalent opioid dose of ≥50%; re-irradiation; or pathologic fracture. Among evaluable patients who received treatment per protocol, the single-fraction SBRT group had more pain responders (CR+PR) at 2 weeks (62% vs. 36% MFRT, P= 0.01), at 1 month (62% vs 36%, P= 0.01), at 3 months (72% vs. 49% MFRT, P= 0.03), and at 9 months (77% vs. 12% MFRT, P= 0.03). No differences were found in treatment-related toxicity or quality of life scores after SBRT versus MFRT; local control rates at 1 year were higher in patients receiving single-fraction SBRT. Conclusions: Delivering high-dose single-fraction SBRT is an effective, convenient treatment option for patients with painful bone metastases. Among evaluable patients, SBRT led to higher rates of pain response (CR+PR) than did MFRT and thus should be considered for patients expected to have relatively long survival. Clinical trial information: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02163226.

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)0.003
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.368 · 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 designRandomized trial
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 Clinical OncologySame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207