American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Radiation Therapy in the Multidisciplinary Management of Thymic Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Thymic carcinoma is rare, and its oncologic management is controversial due to a paucity of prospective data. For this reason, multidisciplinary consensus guidelines are crucial to guide oncologic management. Objective: To develop expert multidisciplinary consensus guidelines on the management of common presentations of thymic carcinoma. Evidence Review: Case variants spanning the spectrum of stage I to IV thymic carcinoma were developed by the 15-member multidisciplinary American Radium Society (ARS) Thoracic Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) expert panel to address management controversies. A comprehensive review of the English-language medical literature from 1980 to 2021 was performed to inform consensus guidelines. Variants and procedures were evaluated by the panel using modified Delphi methodology. Agreement/consensus was defined as less than or equal to 3 rating points from median. Consensus recommendations were then approved by the ARS Executive Committee and subject to public comment per established ARS procedures. Findings: The ARS Thoracic AUC panel identified 89 relevant references and obtained consensus for all procedures evaluated for thymic carcinoma. Minimally invasive thymectomy was rated as usually inappropriate (regardless of stage) due to the infiltrative nature of thymic carcinomas. There was consensus that conventionally fractionated radiation (1.8-2 Gy daily) to a dose of 45 to 60 Gy adjuvantly and 60 to 66 Gy in the definitive setting is appropriate and that elective nodal irradiation is inappropriate. For radiation technique, the panel recommended use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy or proton therapy (rather than 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy) to reduce radiation exposure to the heart and lungs. Conclusions and Relevance: The ARS Thoracic AUC panel has developed multidisciplinary consensus guidelines for various presentations of thymic carcinoma, perhaps the most well referenced on the topic.
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 | 0.044 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".