MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290879678 · doi:10.1200/jco.21.02831

Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy Reduces Patient-Reported Chronic Toxicity Compared With Conventional Pelvic Radiation Therapy: Updated Results of a Phase III Trial

2022· article· en· W4290879678 on OpenAlexaff
Anamaria R. Yeung, Snehal Deshmukh, Ann H. Klopp, Karen M. Gil, Lari Wenzel, Shannon N. Westin, André Konski, David K. Gaffney, William Small, J. S. Thompson, Desiree E. Doncals, Guilherme Cantuaria, David D’Souza, Amy Chang, Vijayananda Kundapur, Dasarahally S. Mohan, Michael L. Haas, Yong Bae Kim, C.L. Ferguson, Stephanie L. Pugh, Lisa A. Kachnic, Deborah Watkins Bruner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Cancer Agency
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineCommon Terminology Criteria for Adverse EventsClinical endpointRadiation therapyProstate cancerClinical trialAdverse effectEndometrial cancerInternal medicineUrinary systemQuality of life (healthcare)CancerSurgeryOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned coprimary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. The purpose of this update was to determine differences in patient-reported chronic toxicity and disease outcomes with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) compared with conventional pelvic radiation. Patients with cervical and endometrial cancers who received postoperative pelvic radiation were randomly assigned to conventional radiation therapy (CRT) or IMRT. Toxicity and quality of life were assessed using Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) bowel and urinary domains, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General. Between 2012 and 2015, 279 eligible patients were enrolled to the study with a median follow-up of 37.8 months. There were no differences in overall survival ( P = .53), disease-free survival ( P = .21), or locoregional failure ( P = .81). One year after RT, patients in the CRT arm experienced more high-level diarrhea frequency (5.8% IMRT v 15.1% CRT, P = .042) and a greater number had to take antidiarrheal medication two or more times a day (1.2% IMRT v 8.6% CRT, P = .036). At 3 years, women in the CRT arm reported a decline in urinary function, whereas the IMRT arm continued to improve (mean change in EPIC urinary score = 0.5, standard deviation = 13.0, IMRT v –6.0, standard deviation = 14.3, CRT, P = .005). In conclusion, IMRT reduces patient-reported chronic GI and urinary toxicity with no difference in treatment efficacy at 3 years.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations40
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207