MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283400085 · doi:10.14740/wjon1454

Abdominopelvic Lymphatic Drainage Area Irradiation for Consolidative Radiotherapy of Advanced Ovarian Carcinoma: Analysis of Clinical Application Efficacy and Dosimetric Verification

2022· article· en· W4283400085 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jing Shen, Yinjie Tao, Hui Guan, Hong Zhen, Ting Ting Dong, Zhi Kai Liu, Fu Quan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyPerforationLymphatic systemOverall survivalRadiologyNuclear medicineSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of abdominopelvic lymphatic drainage area irradiation (APLN), instead of whole abdominal radiotherapy (WART), in the consolidative radiotherapy of advanced ovarian carcinoma patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis collecting 99 patients with locally advanced ovarian cancer treated by APLN with 45 - 50 Gy/25- 28 fractions/5-7#, instead of WART. We evaluated the clinical outcome of APLN. Five patients were selected for dosimetric verifications verses WART (30 Gy/20 fractions). The normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) was calculated for the two treatment methods. Results: The mean follow-up time was 64.10 months (5.5 - 113.2 months), after APLN consolidative radiotherapy, 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) was 87.9%, 81.3%, and 61.5%, median disease-free survival (DFS) was 40.8 months, 5-year local recurrence free survival (LRFS) was 75.9%, and 5-year distant metastasis free survival (DMFS) was 49.2%. One patient died due to intestinal perforation. Local recurrence in the area between WART and APLN was rare (3/99 patients). The number of surgical procedures < 2 was an independent risk factor for LRFS (P = 0.023). Dosimetric comparison showed that comparing with WART, APLN significantly reduced the organ at risk (OAR) dose: 25.37 ± 3.63 Gy (25%) for liver, 8.77 ± 5.03 Gy (25%) for kidney, 8.14 ± 1.51 Gy (25%) for small intestine, etc. NTCP was reduced by 0.04-1.04% for liver, kidney, and small intestine. Conclusion: For consolidative radiotherapy in locally advanced ovarian cancer, APLN (intensity-modulated radiotherapy 45 - 50 Gy/25 - 28 fractions) could be an alternative to WART, resulting in excellent LRFS and DFS, with acceptable toxicities, comparing with previous literature reports. Dosimetric analysis also showed the benefits of APLN in NTCP.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 venueWorld Journal of OncologySame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207