MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366597374 · doi:10.3390/curroncol30040326

The Effect of Contemporary Brachytherapy Practices on Prognosis in Women with Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer

2023· article· en· W4366597374 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J.J. Laan, Luc R.C.W. van Lonkhuijzen, Jaap A. Stokking, Danique L.J. Barten, Karel A. Hinnen, Bradley R. Pieters, Lukas J.A. Stalpers, Henrike Westerveld

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrachytherapyCervical cancerCohortInterquartile rangeRadiation therapyRetrospective cohort studyHazard ratioProportional hazards modelConfidence intervalCancerSurgeryRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(1) Background: Over the past two decades use of new imaging modalities and the adaptation of applicators have allowed for advances in volumetric (3D) imaging-based brachytherapy practices for patients with locally advanced cervical cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the oncological outcome and toxicity for three consecutively introduced brachytherapy practices in a large single-center cohort; (2) Methods: Patients treated for cervical cancer with primary radiotherapy and curative intent were consecutively included in this retrospective, single-center cohort study from 2006 to 2019. This cohort was divided into three groups (CT, MRI, and MRI+needles) based on the timing of the introduction of a novel brachytherapy practice; 3D brachytherapy planning using CT- and MRI-guided adaptive brachytherapy and the use of parametrial interstitial needles, respectively. Actuarial estimates were compared between groups. Multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to correct for other risk factors. Crude rates of severe (≥grade 3) late toxicity were reported; (3) Results: A total of 397 patients were included in this cohort. At a median follow-up of 40 months (interquartile range (IQR) 22–62), actuarial 3-year local control, pelvic control, disease-free survival, and overall survival for the entire cohort were 91% (95% (Confidence Interval (CI)) 88–94), 88% (95% CI 84–91), 69% (95% CI 64–74), and 75% (95% CI 70–79), respectively). Local control, disease-free survival, and overall survival were significantly improved in the MRI+needles group compared to the CT group (p = 0.040, p = 0.004, and p < 0.001, respectively). Independent risk factors for overall survival were treatment in either the CT or MRI group (vs. MRI+needles), older age at diagnosis, adeno (squamous) carcinoma, FIGO stage III/IV, and lymph node metastases. The crude rate of severe late toxicity was 27% in the CT, 26% in the MRI, and 20% in the MRI+needles group; (4) Conclusions: Prognosis in women with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with state-of-the-art MRI-guided adaptive brachytherapy combined with parametrial interstitial needles compares favorably to patients treated with more traditional CT only based brachytherapy.

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)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicEndometrial and Cervical Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207