MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A prospective randomized parallel-controlled pilot trial of stereotactic body radiation therapy versus radiofrequency ablation for the management of small renal masses.

2022· article· en· W4212884503 on OpenAlexaff
Jen Hoogenes, Anand Swaminath, Oleg Mironov, Camilla Tajzler, Raees Cassim, Braden Millan, Edward D. Matsumoto, Anil Kapoor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonJuravinski Cancer CentreMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiofrequency ablationRenal cell carcinomaChromophobe cellRandomized controlled trialPercutaneousRadiologyRadiosurgerySurgeryClinical trialProspective cohort studyAblationNuclear medicineRadiation therapyClear cellInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

363 Background: The potential of ablative technologies as an alternative to surgery for the treatment of small renal masses (SRMs) ≤4cm is unclear. Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility and toxicity of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for SRMs in a prospective randomized pilot trial. Methods: Patients scheduled for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treatment at a single academic center were approached for the pilot trial, with the aim of recruiting 24 patients. Participants were assigned 1:1 to SBRT or RFA. Imaging (CT or MRI) using a renal tumor protocol is completed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-procedure. Biopsies were completed prior to the procedure and at 12 months. Multiple clinical parameters were collected. Follow-up visits will occur at 6 month intervals following the trial up to 5 years. SBRT included an initial simulation session and a single image-guided treatment session with a prescribed dose of 25 Gy. RFA was conducted by either percutaneous or laparoscopic access with 2 cycles of 8 minutes duration each upon reaching target temperature. Results: Beginning in December 2019, 24 patients were recruited and randomized (SBRT = 11; RFA = 13). Eleven had SBRT, 8 RFA, 3 have not yet had treatment, and 2 became ineligible. Median age for all patients was 67 (53,85) and 17 were male. A total of 17 patients had clear cell RCC, 6 had papillary RCC (type 1), and 1 had chromophobe RCC. All patients had T1a disease. Mean procedure length (minutes) for SBRT and RFA was 15.5±7.4 and 10.5±3.9, respectively. Two patients (both SBRT) had a 12-month biopsy showing no evidence of recurrence or metastases, while two patients (1 RFA, 1 SBRT) had a 9-month CT showing no recurrence. Data are pending for the remaining patients. An early grade 2 flare-up occurred in one SBRT patient. Conclusions: Recruitment and randomization of patients with SRMs in a SBRT vs. RFA prospective trial is feasible on a timeline that allows for regular follow-up and imaging. To date, both treatment modalities have been shown to have excellent short-term safety profiles.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicRenal cell carcinoma treatment→French-language works237,207→