MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380852815 · doi:10.1200/go.23.00046

Hypofractionation Adoption in Prostate Cancer Radiotherapy: Results of an International Survey

2023· article· en· W4380852815 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Sabbagh, Jessica Weiss, Bouchra Tawk, Mohammed A. Mohammed, Hasan Abdulbaki, Fábio Ynoe de Moraes, Surbhi Grover, Mei Ling Yap, Eduardo Zubizarreta, Yolande Lievens, Danielle Rodin, Osama Mohamad

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Global Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
KeywordsProstate cancerMedicineRadiation therapyLogistic regressionRegimenFamily medicineOncologyInternal medicineCancerDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE Hypofractionation is noninferior to conventional fractionation in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Using results from the European Society of Radiation Oncology's (ESTRO) Global Impact of Radiotherapy in Oncology (GIRO) initiative survey on hypofractionation, this study identifies rates of adoption, facilitating factors, and barriers to adoption of hypofractionation in prostate cancer across World Bank income groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS The ESTRO-GIRO initiative administered an international, anonymous, electronic survey to radiation oncologists from 2018 to 2019. Physician demographics, clinical practice characteristics, and hypofractionation regimen use (if any) for several prostate cancer scenarios were collected. Responders were asked about specific justifications and barriers to adopting hypofractionation, and responses were stratified by World Bank income group. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to analyze variables associated with hypofractionation preference. RESULTS A total of 1,157 physician responses were included. Most respondents (60%) were from high-income countries (HICs). In the curative setting, hypofractionation was most often preferred in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancers, with 52% and 47% of respondents reporting hypofractionation use in ≥50% of patients, respectively. These rates drop to 35% and 20% in high-risk prostate cancer and where pelvic irradiation is indicated. Most respondents (89%) preferred hypofractionation in the palliative setting. Overall, respondents from upper-middle-income countries and lower-middle- and low-income countries were significantly less likely to prefer hypofractionation than those from HICs ( P < .001). The most frequently cited justification and barrier were availability of published evidence and fear of worse late toxicity, respectively. CONCLUSION Hypofractionation preference varies by indication and World Bank income group, with greater acceptance among providers in HICs for all indications. These results provide a basis for targeted interventions to increase provider acceptance of this treatment modality.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueJCO Global OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207