MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980267785 · doi:10.36076/ppj/2017.7.e1053

The Hopeless Case? Palliative Cryoablation andCementoplasty Procedures for Palliation ofLarge Pelvic Bone Metastases

2017· article· en· W2980267785 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler M. Coupal

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Physician · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePelvisPalliative careCryoablationPercutaneousSurgeryRadiologyGeneral surgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Metastases to the bone are common in cancer patients, and it has been estimated that up to 50% of patients with pelvic bone metastases will not achieve adequate pain control with medications alone. This has led to a paradigm shift over recent years towards the use and development of minimally invasive image-guided treatment options for palliation of bony metastases. Despite these developments, large metastatic lesions are still often considered to be "hopeless cases" that would garner little to no benefit from image-guided intervention. This study is the first large series to describe the novel use of combination percutaneous cryoablation and cementoplasty for palliation of such large metastases to the pelvis. OBJECTIVES: We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of image-guided percutaneous cryoablation and cementoplasty for palliation of large pelvic bone metastases. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective analysis was approved by our institutional review board. This study was conducted from January 2013 to December 2016, where consecutive patients referred for pain management of large pelvic bone metastases underwent combination percutaneous cryoablation and cementoplasty. SETTING: This study took place at a tertiary care center after patients were referred following formal review from a multidisciplinary conference, which was comprised of interventional radiologists, pain management and palliative care physicians, radiation and medical oncologists, and when available, anesthesiologists. METHODS: Forty-eight patients (36 men and 12 women) with a mean cohort age of 77.5 years (range: 52 - 89 years) were referred from the multidisciplinary conference for palliation of pelvic bone metastases. The inclusion criteria included patients with metastases greater or equal to 5.0 cm and significant pain refractory to conventional pain management regimens. All of the patients were deemed not to be surgical candidates. Mean pain scores were collected at numerous time-points along with procedural technical success rates and complication rates. RESULTS: Combination cryoablation and cementoplasty was performed on 48 consecutively referred patients with a 100% technical success rate and no immediate complications. The pain levels demonstrated a significant decrease (P < 0.001) following intervention, with mean pain scores of 7.9 (range: 5 - 10) and 1.2 (range: 0 - 7) throughout the week prior to intervention and at 24 hours post-intervention, respectively. The post-intervention pain scores remained stable at 1 to 9 weeks follow-up (mean: 4.1 weeks). Three patents (6.3%) reported no change in pain following the intervention; however, no patients reported worsened pain. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this study include its retrospective nature and the length of follow-up, which was often restricted given the life expectancy of our patient cohort. CONCLUSION: Combination cryoablation and cementoplasty is a novel and efficacious treatment option for palliation of large pelvic bone metastases. Marked improvements in pain, as well as mobility and quality of life, are often attainable. KEY WORDS: Pain, palliative care, palliation, percutaneous, cryoablation, cementoplasty, metastases, pelvis, interventional radiology, thermal ablation.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations40
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain PhysicianSame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207