MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P042 Inflammatory bowel disease is no longer a contraindication for radiation therapy: A systematic review of outcomes with modern RT techniques

2019· review· en· W2962805151 on OpenAlexaff
Gaurav Bahl

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContraindicationUlcerative colitisInternal medicineInflammatory bowel diseaseRadiation therapyExacerbationGastroenterologyMalignancyDiseaseSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) continues to be considered a contraindication to the use of Radiation Therapy (RT). Oncologists are often unwilling to deliver RT, due to a perceived risk of severe bowel toxicity, or IBD exacerbation. Modern precision RT techniques allow significant reduction in dose to normal organs, and several studies have reported low toxicity rates. We performed a systematic review of recent studies to summarize the current evidence regarding RT toxicity in cancer patients with IBD. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched, using combinations of key terms, for relevant studies published over the past 10 years (2008–2018). Reference lists of eligible articles were also hand-searched. A total of 278 articles were screened, and 9 studies met our search criteria to be included in this review. RESULTS: From the 9 relevant studies, 198 patients with IBD, treated using radiation therapy, and with outcome data available, were included. The reported median follow-up was 55.2 months. The majority of patients (n = 148, 75%) were male; 113 (57%) had Ulcerative Colitis, 81 (41%) had Crohn's Disease, and 4 patients had IBD NOS. Nineteen patients (9.5%) were reported to have active IBD within 6 -12 months prior to starting RT. Colo-rectal carcinoma was the most common malignancy (n = 91, 46%), followed by prostate cancer (n = 83, 42%), anal-canal (n = 10, 5%), and gynecological malignancies (n = 6, 3%). External beam RT was used as part of treatment for 173 patients (87%), while 25 received brachytherapy alone. About 28% (n = 55) also received concurrent chemotherapy. From studies that reported the RT technique used, about 43% of patients were treated with Intensity Modulated RT (IMRT). RT dose ranged from 25 Gy/5 for pre-op rectal cancers to over 70 Gy for prostate cancers. Median BED (a/b = 3, rectum) was calculated to be 83.3 Gy. Acute toxicity data was available for 190 patients: clinically significant acute toxicity, ≥Grade 3, was reported in 29 patients (15.3%). Late RT toxicity data was available for 115 patients: ≥Grade 2 GI toxicity was reported in 21 (10.5%), and ≥Grade 3 in 7 (3.5%) of patients. CONCLUSION(S): With the use of modern RT techniques, GI toxicity is relatively low for patients with IBD, and is not numerically different from that reported for patients without IBD. Patient selection and meticulous RT planning is important, however, evidence does not suggest that IBD in itself is a contraindication for RT.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicIntraperitoneal and Appendiceal MalignanciesFrench-language works237,207