More Is Not Better When It Comes to Treating Rectal Cancer With Multimodal Chemoradiation Beyond the Standard Radiation Dose of 5040 cGy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiation dose schedules for neoadjuvant chemoradiation for rectal cancers differ, with the most common dose schedule using 5040 cGy in 28 fractions. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the benefit of higher radiation doses beyond 5040 cGy in the context of pathological response and follow-up events. SETTING: The database from a provincial tertiary cancer center in Canada was the source of information for this study. PATIENTS: Included in this study were 508 consecutive patients with rectal cancer with locally advanced disease (clinical T3/T4 or N1/N2) who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery. Of the 508 patients, 281 received the standard radiation dose of 4500 to 5040 cGy and 227 received a dose >5040 cGy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The postsurgical pathology, late toxicities, and follow-up outcomes were analyzed. The outcomes were evaluated in relation to the dose of radiation received. RESULTS: Data regarding the clinical outcomes were comparable between the 4500 to 5040 cGy and >5040 cGy radiation groups with pathological complete response rates of 20.9% and 15.4% (p = 0.104); distant recurrence rates of 17.4% and 19.4% (p = 0.36); local recurrence rates of 3.2% and 3.5% (p = 0.36); and the median overall survival rates of 61 and 60.5 months (p = 0.8). No statistically significant correlation of improvement in outcomes was noted with radiation doses beyond 5040 cGy. LIMITATIONS: This is a retrospective study. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that dose escalation beyond the standard dose of 4500 to 5040cGy failed to achieve meaningful clinical outcomes. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B633. MS NO ES MEJOR CUANDO SE TRATA DE TRATAR EL CNCER DE RECTO CON QUIMIORRADIACIN MULTIMODAL MS ALL DE LA DOSIS DE RADIACIN ESTNDAR DE CGY: ANTECEDENTES:En neoadyuvancia de cáncer rectal es posible encontrar muchas variaciones, en radioterapia la dosis más común que usa 5040 cGy en 28 fracciones.OBJETIVOS:El objetivo de este estudio retrospectivo fue evaluar el beneficio de dosis de radiación más altas más allá de 5040cGy en el contexto de la respuesta patológica y en su seguimiento.AJUSTE:Base de datos de un centro de cáncer terciario provincial en Canadá.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron en este estudio quinientos ocho pacientes consecutivos con cáncer de recto y enfermedad localmente avanzada (clínica T3 / T4 o N1 / N2) que recibieron quimiorradiación neoadyuvante seguida de cirugía. De los 508 pacientes, 281 recibieron la dosis de radiación estándar de 4500-5040 cGy y 227 recibieron una dosis > 5040 cGy.PRINCIPAL MEDIDA DE RESULTADO:Se analizo evolucion posquirúrgica, toxicidad tardía y seguimiento. Los resultados se evaluaron en relación con la dosis de radiación recibida.RESULTADOS:Los datos con respecto a los resultados clínicos fueron comparables entre los grupos de radiación de 4500-5040 cGy y> 5040 cGy con tasas de respuesta patológica completa de 20,9% y 15,4% respectivamente (p = 0,104); tasas de recurrencia a distancia de 17,4% y 19,4%, respectivamente (p = 0,36); tasas de recurrencia local de 3,2% y 3,5%, respectivamente (p = 0,36); y la mediana de las tasas de supervivencia global de 61 y 60,5 meses, respectivamente (p = 0,8). No se observó una correlación estadísticamente significativa de mejoría en los resultados con dosis de radiación superiores a 5040 cGy.LIMITACIONES:Este es un estudio retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:Nuestro estudio mostró que el aumento de la dosis más allá de la dosis estándar de 4500-5040cGy no logró resultados clínicos significativos. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B633. (Traducción-Dr. Gunther Bocic).
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".