MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Low-dose radiation to cardiac substructures and late-onset cardiac disease: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS).

2021· article· en· W3167115701 on OpenAlexaff
James E. Bates, Suman Shrestha, Qi Liu, Daniel A. Mulrooney, Susan A. Smith, Wendy M. Leisenring, Todd M. Gibson, Eric J. Chow, Kevin C. Oeffinger, Leslie L. Robison, Gregory T. Armstrong, Louis S. Constine, Bradford S. Hoppe, Choonsik Lee, Yutaka Yasui, Rebecca M. Howell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity and mitigation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institutes of HealthAmerican Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities
KeywordsMedicineCumulative doseCoronary artery diseaseCardiologyInternal medicineCumulative incidenceRadiation therapyHeart failureCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10027 Background: Thoracic radiotherapy (RT) is a risk factor for cardiac disease among survivors of childhood cancer based on studies considering RT doses to the entire heart. Dose to specific cardiac substructures may provide more precise dose-response associations to guide RT planning. We report associations between RT dose to cardiac substructures and risk of specific cardiac outcomes. Methods: We determined the cumulative incidences of CTCAE grade 3 – 5 coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure (HF), and valvular disease (VD) among 25,481 5-year childhood cancer survivors diagnosed 1970 – 1999 in the CCSS. Median age at diagnosis was 6.1 years (0 – 20 years) and at last follow-up 29.8 years (5.6 – 65.9 years). For the 12,228 individuals receiving RT, fields were reconstructed on an age scaled computational phantom. Mean doses to the entire heart, cardiac chambers, valves, and left main, anterior descending (LAD), circumflex, and right coronary (RCA) arteries were estimated. Adjusted piecewise exponential models (including cumulative anthracycline dose) evaluated associations between mean RT dose to each structure and outcomes. Results: At 30 years from diagnosis, the cumulative incidences of grades 3 – 5 CAD, HF, and VD were 2.3% (95% CI 2.0 – 2.5), 2.6% (95% CI 2.4 – 2.9), and 0.6% (95% CI 0.5 – 0.8) respectively. Low dose RT (mean 5 – 9.9 Gy) to the RCA (relative rate [RR] = 2.6, 95% CI 1.6 – 4.1, p < 0.001), LAD (RR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.1 – 3.3, p = 0.019), and left ventricle (RR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.3 – 3.7, p = 0.002) was associated with increased risk of CAD relative to those not exposed; mean dose of 5 – 9.9 Gy to the entire heart was not (RR = 1.1, 95% CI = 0.8 – 1.6, p = 0.59). Table shows the associated cumulative incidences of CAD for these structures. Mean RT doses of 5 – 9.9 Gy to the aortic valve (RR = 4.6, 95% CI 1.5 – 14.0, p = 0.008) and tricuspid valve (RR = 5.5, 95% CI 2.0 – 15.1, p = 0.001) were associated with risk of VD compared to those with no RT; mean heart dose 5 – 9.9 Gy was not (RR = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.2 – 1.3, p = 0.16). No cardiac structure was significantly associated with an increased risk of HF at a mean dose of 5 – 9.9 Gy. Mean RT doses below 5 Gy were not associated with increased risks of CAD, HF, or VD; doses ≥10 Gy to nearly all substructures and the entire heart were. Conclusions: Low dose RT to the coronary arteries and cardiac valves (5 – 9.9 Gy) from RT is associated with increased risk of CAD and VD, respectively. Sensitivity to low dose RT may vary across the heart and doses to specific structures may be more predictive of late cardiac disease than whole heart dose. These data can guide RT planning to prioritize substructures for avoidance.[Table: see text]

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicChemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity and mitigationFrench-language works237,207