MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210626872 · doi:10.7759/cureus.21878

Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Outcomes in a Single Institution

2022· article· en· W4210626872 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan Doupnik, Khalid Hirmiz, Abdulkadir Hussein, John Agapito, Ming Pan

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorWindsor Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStage (stratigraphy)Lung cancerRadiation therapyRadiologyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The gold standard treatment of stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is surgical resection. For medically inoperable patients, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) can provide comparable local control (LC) and overall survival (OS). The objectives of this study are to determine the three-year LC and OS for SBRT compared to early-stage NSCLC patients treated with alternative radiation modalities at our institution. Materials and methods This retrospective study included a total of 139 consecutive patients who were diagnosed with stage I (T1-2 N0 M0) NSCLC and treated with radiation therapy at our institution between 2015 and 2020. Patient demographics and clinical data were obtained from chart reviews. Treatment subgroups were: SBRT (48Gy/4 or 60Gy/8), hypofractionation (60Gy/15), conventional fractionation (60Gy/30 or 50Gy/20), and palliative radiation (20Gy/5, 30Gy/10, or 40Gy/15). Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted for LC and OS. We also performed Cox's proportional hazard regression analysis. Results The median patient age was 74 (range 52-91). The numbers of patients in each treatment subgroup were: SBRT (44), hypofractionation (78), conventional fractionation (8), and palliative (9). Differences in age, gender, and histopathological cell type between subgroups were not statistically significant. Metastatic progression was the most common outcome amongst treatment failures, followed by local recurrence and regional spread. Median post-treatment follow-up in months for each subgroup was: SBRT (20.2), hypofractionated (20.7), conventional fractionation (13.9), and palliative (14.4). Post-treatment three-year LC was found to be significantly better with SBRT (94%) versus hypofractionation (71%), conventional fractionation (80%), and palliative (71%). OS at three years were SBRT (67%), hypofractionation (59%), conventional fractionation (66%), and palliative (44%). As a whole, 72% (100/139) of patients had biopsy-proven NSCLC. Analysis showed biopsy status had no statistical significance with regards to LC or OS. Every 20 years of age had a 3.2x risk of death (95% CI: 1.425-7.268). Concerning the treatment modalities, there were significant differences for the hazard of death compared to SBRT: hypofractionation had 2.58x increased risk while palliative had 5.83x increased risk. The proportion of patients who experienced post-treatment radiation pneumonitis or dermatitis were: SBRT (7%, 2%), hypofractionation (8%, 3%), conventional fractionation (13%, 25%), and palliative (0%, 0%), respectively. No patients who experienced grade III or higher toxicities were observed as defined by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Conclusion Our experience confirms SBRT can provide durable three-year local control with a comparable rate of post-treatment complications versus other radiation modalities for early-stage NSCLC. SBRT appears to be non-inferior to hypofractionation with regards to three-year LC.

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)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureus→Same topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→