MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047744985 · doi:10.21037/apm-20-847

A review of ongoing trials of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for oligometastatic disease in the context of new consensus definitions

2020· review· en· W3047744985 on OpenAlexaff
Li G, Andrew Arifin, Faiez Al-Shafa, Patrick Cheung, George Rodrigues, David A. Palma, Alexander V. Louie

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Palliative Medicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreCancer Care OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersEuropean SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology
KeywordsMedicineSABR volatility modelContext (archaeology)Clinical trialRadiation therapyPopulationOncologyInternal medicineMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The characterization and treatment of oligometastatic disease (OMD) are rapidly growing areas of research. Consensus statements have recently been developed by European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)/American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and ESTRO/European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) in an effort to harmonize terminology describing OMD. The purpose of this study was to assess patient populations eligible for ongoing clinical trials evaluating stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in OMD in the context of key definitions from both statements. Using the clinicaltrials.gov database, a search of ongoing OMD clinical trials evaluating the use of SABR was performed from inception to January 2020, using the keywords "oligometastasis", "stereotactic radiotherapy", and related terms. Results were independently reviewed by two investigators, with discrepancies settled by a third. Information from these trials including study design, population criteria, and primary endpoints were extracted. OMD was defined in general as a limited number of metastases that could be safely treated with metastasis-directed therapy. States of OMD were broadly categorized into de novo, repeat, and induced, with synchronous and metachronous being subsets of de novo. The initial search strategy identified 293 trials, of which 85 met our eligibility criteria. Phase II trials were by far the most common (n=46, 52%). Most trials had a single treatment arm (n=43, 51%), and 31 (36%) were randomized. The majority of trials (n=65, 76%) had populations that included all three subsets of OMD. Notably, 70 trials (82%) also included oligoprogressive disease, which is debatably a distinct entity from OMD. Progression-free survival was the most common primary endpoint (n=31, 36%), followed by local control (n=17, 20%), toxicity (n=14, 16%) and overall survival (n=7, 8%). Although the use of SABR for OMD is an active area of prospective clinical trial research, ongoing studies include mixed populations as defined by new consensus statements. Therefore, the applicability of results from these trials should be considered within relevant OMD scenarios.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.351
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.147 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Palliative MedicineSame topicAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207