Symptom Burden in Patients With Reduced Performance Status at the Start of Palliative Radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Previous research has suggested that palliative radiotherapy is a useful measure, unless short survival reduces the time spent without active treatment, and in the case of a low likelihood of experiencing a net benefit in quality of life. Patients with reduced performance status (PS) may be especially at risk of futile treatment, despite having a relatively high symptom burden and thus a potential benefit. Therefore, we analyzed the symptom burden of patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS 3-4 in our center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of 102 consecutive patients who received palliative radiotherapy for different indications. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) was employed to assess the pre-radiotherapy symptoms. RESULTS: When applying the lowest threshold (ESAS ≥1), up to 97% of patients with PS 3-4 reported symptoms, such as fatigue and dry mouth. When focusing on moderate/severe symptoms (ESAS ≥4), still up to 77% of patients with PS 3-4 reported such a burden. The largest differences between patients with PS 3-4 and those with 0-1 were seen with regard to nausea, fatigue, dry mouth and reduced appetite. The median survival of patients with PS 3-4 was 2 months. CONCLUSION: Given that many of the symptoms reported by patients with PS 3-4 tend to worsen temporarily after radiotherapy, patients with short survival may not experience a net benefit during the few weeks before death. However, if other symptoms such as dyspnea or pain prevail, short-course radiotherapy may result in worthwhile palliation and should, therefore, be considered on a case-by-case basis and after estimation of the remaining lifespan.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".