Low-Dose Hemibody Radiation, a Treatment Option for Recurrent Prostate Cancer: A Phase 2 Single-Arm Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PurposeNontargeted low-dose ionizing radiation has been proposed as a cancer therapeutic for several decades; however, questions remain about the duration of hematological changes and optimal dosing regimen. Early studies delivering fractionated low doses of radiation to patients with cancer used varying doses and schedules, which make it difficult to standardize a successful dose and scheduling system for widespread use. The aim of this phase 2 two-stage trial was to determine whether low-dose radiation therapy (LD-RT) reduced prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in patients with recurrent prostate cancer in efforts to delay initiation of conventional therapies that are known to decrease quality of life. The primary study outcome was reduction in PSA levels by at least 50%.Methods and MaterialsSixteen patients with recurrent prostate cancer were recruited and received 2 doses of 150 mGy of nontargeted radiation per week, for 5 consecutive weeks, with 15 participants completing the study.ResultsA maximal response of 40.5% decrease in PSA at 3 months was observed. A total of 8 participants remained off any additional interventions, of whom 3 had minor fluctuations in PSA for at least 1 year after treatment. The most common adverse event reported was mild fatigue during active treatment (n = 4), which did not persist in the follow-up period. No participants withdrew due to safety concerns or hematological abnormalities (ie, platelet ≤50 × 109/L, leukocyte ≤3 × 109/L, granulocyte ≤2 × 109/L).ConclusionsOur study did not meet the primary objective; however, LD-RT may be a potential therapy for some patients with recurrent prostate cancer by stalling rising PSA. This study also demonstrates that low-dose radiation is well tolerated by participants with minimal toxicities and no change in quality of life.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".