MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract PO-091: Does volumetric-modulated arc therapy improve anal cancer treatment outcome and reduce toxicity: A single institution experience

2021· article· en· W3152849619 on OpenAlexaff
Ming Pan, Nitin Rai

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal and Anal Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityWindsor Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnal cancerAnal canalRadiation therapyRectumCancerSurgeryRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Anal cancer (AC) is a relatively rare malignancy that can have poor prognosis if not treated at an early stage. It is difficult to conduct phase 3 clinical trials due to the low incidence rate. Standard treatment of locally advanced AC has been almost always concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy for several decades. In recent years, volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) has emerged as a new technology designed to reduce toxicities. The purpose of this retrospective study is to share our experience in eighteen years to see if this innovative treatment has translated into a better outcome for AC patients. Methods: This study was approved by our institution’s Research Ethics Board (REB). All electronic medical records (EMR) of patients with anal canal, anal or peri-anal malignancies who were seen between January 2002 and December 2019 were reviewed. We were using conventional radiation therapy (CRT) until 2012 when we adopted VMAT as standard radiation modality for definitive treatment of patients with locally advanced AC. We excluded melanoma, lymphoma, and adenocarcinoma of the rectum involving anal canal. Squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal involving rectum or colon was included in the study. A total of 182 consecutive patients meet the selection criteria for analysis. Patient demographics, treatment modalities, survival and toxicity data were recorded. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and life tables using SPSS software were generated to compare outcome of patients that received VMAT versus CRT starting from the end of radiation therapy, i.e. not from date of diagnosis as some other studies in the literature. Results: Median age of our cohort was 61 years (33-98), 116 (64%) were female, majority (72%) were locally advanced stage 2 or 3 (AJCC-7), 4% were HIV positive, 62% were squamous cell carcinoma, 86% received radiotherapy, including 45% VMAT and 40% CRT, 74% received 45 Gy or higher dose, 49% had surgery, and 72% had chemotherapy. Median follow up was 29 months. The 3/5 year overall survival (OS) are 60%/47%, and the 3/5 year local control (LC) are 73%/67%, respectively. Within the sub-groups that received radiation treatment, VMAT had a higher 3/5 year OS of 68%/49%, versus CRT at 54%/45%, p<0.05 and p=0.34, respectively. The 3/5 year LC was not significantly different, 69%/60% versus 74%/71% (p=0.28 and p=0.15, respectively). There was no treatment related death and 20% had Grade 3-4 acute toxicity. Late toxicity analysis was not reliable because of the nature of this retrospective study with no consistent long-term follow up toxicity data available in EMR. The rate of diverting colostomy is high (29.7%), but mostly done prior to treatment due to obstruction. Conclusions: AC treatment outcome in our institution is comparable to published historical data. Our findings support the use of VMAT for localized AC with better OS and similar LC. Large prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the benefit of reducing late toxicities from VMAT comparing to CRT. Citation Format: Ming Pan, Nitin Rai. Does volumetric-modulated arc therapy improve anal cancer treatment outcome and reduce toxicity: A single institution experience [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Special Conference on Radiation Science and Medicine; 2021 Mar 2-3. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2021;27(8_Suppl):Abstract nr PO-091.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.346
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicColorectal and Anal CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207