MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315607834 · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.01.002

Overall Severe Morbidity After Chemo-Radiation Therapy and Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Adaptive Brachytherapy in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer: Results From the EMBRACE-I Study

2023· article· en· W4315607834 on OpenAlexaff
Anders Schwartz Vittrup, Kathrin Kirchheiner, Richard Pötter, Lars Fokdal, Nina Boje Kibsgaard Jensen, Sofia Spampinato, Christine Haie-Méder, Maximilian Schmid, Alina Sturdza, Umesh Mahantshetty, Peter Hoskin, Barbara Šegedin, Kjersti Bruheim, Bhavana Rai, Ericka Wiebe, Elzbieta van der Steen-Banasik, Rachel Cooper, Erik Van Limbergen, Marit Sundset, Bradley R. Pieters, Christian Kirisits, Jacob Christian Lindegaard, Ina M. Jürgenliemk‐Schulz, Remi A. Nout, Kari Tanderup

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersMedizinische Universität WienNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekUniversität WienKræftens BekæmpelseElektaKWF Kankerbestrijding
KeywordsBrachytherapyMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingCervical cancerRadiation therapyRadiologyMedical physicsCancerNuclear medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate overall severe late morbidity (grade ≥3) in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with chemo-radiation therapy and magnetic resonance image guided adaptive brachytherapy within the prospective EMBRACE-I study, and to compare the results with published literature after standard radiograph based brachytherapy (BT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 2008 to 2015 the EMBRACE-I study enrolled 1416 patients. Morbidity was assessed (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0) every 3 months the 1st year, every 6 months the second and third year, and yearly thereafter and 1251 patients had available follow-up on late morbidity. Morbidity events (grade 3-5) were summarized as the maximum grade during follow-up (crude incidence rates) and actuarial estimates at 3 and 5 years. To compare with the published literature on standard radiograph based BT, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events scores from the EMBRACE-I study were retrospectively converted into a corresponding score in the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer system. RESULTS: In total, 534 severe events occurred in 270 patients; 429 events were grade 3 and 105 were grade 4 events. Actuarial estimates for grade ≥3 gastrointestinal (GI), genitourinary (GU), vaginal and fistula events at 5 years were 8.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.9%-10.6%), 6.8% (95% CI, 5.4%-8.6%), 5.7% (95% CI, 4.3%-7.6%), and 3.2% (95% CI, 2.2%-4.5%), respectively. The 5-year actuarial estimate for organ-related events (GI, GU, vaginal, or fistula) was 18.4% (95% CI, 16.0%-21.2%). The 5-year actuarial estimate when aggregating all G≥3 endpoints (GI, GU, vaginal, fistulas, and non-GI/GU/vaginal) was 26.6% (95% CI, 23.8%-29.6%). Thirteen patients had a treatment-related death, 8 of which were associated with GI morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: This report assesses severe morbidity from the largest prospective study on chemo-radiation therapy and image guided adaptive brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer to date. Severe late morbidity was limited per endpoint and organ category, but considerable when aggregated across organs and all endpoints. The late morbidity results in the EMBRACE-I study compare favorably with published literature on standard radiograph based BT for GI morbidity, vaginal morbidity, and fistulas.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations41
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*PhysicsSame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207