MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015667787 · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.04.016

Practice Recommendations for Risk-Adapted Head and Neck Cancer Radiation Therapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An ASTRO-ESTRO Consensus Statement

2020· article· en· W3015667787 on OpenAlexaff
David Thomson, David A. Palma, Matthias Gückenberger, Panagiotis Balermpas, Jonathan J. Beitler, Pierre Blanchard, David M. Brizel, W. Budach, Jimmy J. Caudell, June Corry, Renzo Corvò, Mererid Evans, Adam S. Garden, J. Giralt, Vincent Grégoire, Paul M. Harari, Kevin J. Harrington, Ying J. Hitchcock, Jørgen Johansen, J.H.A.M. Kaanders, Shlomo A. Koyfman, Johannes A. Langendijk, Quynh‐Thu Le, Nancy Y. Lee, Danielle N. Margalit, Michelle Mierzwa, Sandro Porceddu, Yoke Lim Soong, Ying Sun, Juliette Thariat, John Waldron, Sue S. Yom

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreWestern University
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCancer Research UKMedical Research CouncilSanofiPfizerAstraZenecaEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicStatement (logic)Head and neck cancerMedicine2019-20 coronavirus outbreakHead and neckRadiation therapySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Medical physicsIntensive care medicineSurgeryVirologyPathologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)OutbreakPolitical scienceDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Because of the unprecedented disruption of health care services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) identified an urgent need to issue practice recommendations for radiation oncologists treating head and neck cancer (HNC) in a time of limited resources and heightened risk for patients and staff. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A panel of international experts from ASTRO, ESTRO, and select Asia-Pacific countries completed a modified rapid Delphi process. Topics and questions were presented to the group, and subsequent questions were developed from iterative feedback. Each survey was open online for 24 hours, and successive rounds started within 24 hours of the previous round. The chosen cutoffs for strong agreement (≥80%) and agreement (≥66%) were extrapolated from the RAND methodology. Two pandemic scenarios, early (risk mitigation) and late (severely reduced radiation therapy resources), were evaluated. The panel developed treatment recommendations for 5 HNC cases. RESULTS: In total, 29 of 31 of those invited (94%) accepted, and after a replacement 30 of 30 completed all 3 surveys (100% response rate). There was agreement or strong agreement across a number of practice areas, including treatment prioritization, whether to delay initiation or interrupt radiation therapy for intercurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection, approaches to treatment (radiation dose-fractionation schedules and use of chemotherapy in each pandemic scenario), management of surgical cases in event of operating room closures, and recommended adjustments to outpatient clinic appointments and supportive care. CONCLUSIONS: This urgent practice recommendation was issued in the knowledge of the very difficult circumstances in which our patients find themselves at present, navigating strained health care systems functioning with limited resources and at heightened risk to their health during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this consensus statement is to ensure high-quality HNC treatments continue, to save lives and for symptomatic benefit.

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.006
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0100.011
Research integrity0.0220.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations211
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*PhysicsSame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207