The Pediatric Proton and Photon Therapy Comparison Cohort: Study Design for a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort to Investigate Subsequent Cancers After Pediatric Radiation Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The physical properties of protons lower doses to surrounding normal tissues compared with photons, potentially reducing acute and long-term adverse effects, including subsequent cancers. The magnitude of benefit is uncertain, however, and currently based largely on modeling studies. Despite the paucity of directly comparative data, the number of proton centers and patients are expanding exponentially. Direct studies of the potential risks and benefits are needed in children, who have the highest risk of radiation-related subsequent cancers. The Pediatric Proton and Photon Therapy Comparison Cohort aims to meet this need. Methods and Materials: We are developing a record-linkage cohort of 10,000 proton and 10,000 photon therapy patients treated from 2007 to 2022 in the United States and Canada for pediatric central nervous system tumors, sarcomas, Hodgkin lymphoma, or neuroblastoma, the pediatric tumors most frequently treated with protons. Exposure assessment will be based on state-of-the-art dosimetry facilitated by collection of electronic radiation records for all eligible patients. Subsequent cancers and mortality will be ascertained by linkage to state and provincial cancer registries in the United States and Canada, respectively. The primary analysis will examine subsequent cancer risk after proton therapy compared with photon therapy, adjusting for potential confounders and accounting for competing risks. Results: For the primary aim comparing overall subsequent cancer rates between proton and photon therapy, we estimated that with 10,000 patients in each treatment group there would be 80% power to detect a relative risk of 0.8 assuming a cumulative incidence of subsequent cancers of 2.5% by 15 years after diagnosis. To date, 9 institutions have joined the cohort and initiated data collection; additional centers will be added in the coming year(s). Conclusions: Our findings will affect clinical practice for pediatric patients with cancer by providing the first large-scale systematic comparison of the risk of subsequent cancers from proton compared with photon therapy.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".