Longer Survival and Preserved Liver Function after Proton Beam Therapy for Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Proton beam therapy (PBT) has been recently reported to achieve excellent tumor control with minimal toxicity in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) was investigated for larger HCC. This study was designed to evaluate the therapeutic effect of PBT on unresectable HCC in comparison with TACE combined with RFA. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 70 patients with HCC which was difficult to control by surgical resection or RFA monotherapy, 24 patients treated with PBT and 46 patients with TACE plus RFA. The therapeutic effects were assessed as local progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The local PFS was more than 65% in 60 months for PBT and TACE plus RFA. The patients treated with PBT showed 82% OS at 60 months post-treatment. In contrast, those treated with TACE plus RFA showed 28% OS. When comparing the changes of ALBI scores in patients with different severities of chronic liver disease, the scores of PBT-treated patients were maintained at the baseline; however, those of TACE plus RFA-treated patients worsened after the treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that PBT may show better benefits than TACE plus RFA therapy in terms of OS in patients with unresectable HCC by sparing the non-tumor liver tissues.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".