Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for the Treatment of Oligometastatic Cancer: A Clinical Review as Part of a Health Technology Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oligometastatic cancer (cancer with a limited number of metastases) represents an intermediate state between cancer confined to a single location in the body and cancer that has metastasized — or spread — widely. One treatment option, for which there is growing interest, is stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, also known as SABR. SABR precisely delivers a high dose of radiation to ablate tumours at specific sites while minimizing the radiation dose to surrounding normal tissues. SABR may be used independently or alongside other treatment options in the management of oligometastatic cancer. This CADTH clinical review evaluated the evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness and safety of SABR with or without standard of care (SOC) for people with oligometastatic cancer and found the following: SABR in addition to SOC may offer a benefit in terms of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The findings for the effectiveness of SABR alone compared with SOC were mixed and deemed inconclusive. There are insufficient data related to adverse events (AEs) at the present time to draw conclusions regarding the safety of SABR relative to SOC alternatives. Note that the CADTH Clinical Review Report will be updated every 3 months to ensure the findings remain up-to-date as new evidence emerges.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".