The Effectiveness and Safety of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) in the Treatment of Oligoprogressive Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has emerged as a technique to treat oligoprogressive sites among patients with breast cancer who are otherwise doing well on systemic therapy. This study systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of SBRT in the setting of oligoprogressive breast cancer. A literature search was conducted in the MEDLINE database. Studies regarding SBRT and oligoprogressive breast cancer were included. Key outcomes of interest were toxicity, local control, progression, and overall survival. From 863 references, five retrospective single-center cohort studies were identified. All studies included patients with both oligometastatic and oligoprogressive disease; 112 patients with oligoprogressive breast cancer were identified across these studies. Patient age ranged from 22 to 84, with a median of 55 years of age. Most patients had hormone-receptor-positive and HER2-negative disease. SBRT doses varied from 24 to 60 Gy in 1–10 fractions based on the location/size of the lesion. Forty toxicity events were reported, of which the majority (n = 25, 62.5%) were grade 1–2 events. Among 15 patients who received SBRT concurrently with a CDK4/6 inhibitor, 37.5% of patients experienced grade 3–5 toxicities. Progression-free and overall survival ranged from 17 to 57% and 62 to 91%, respectively. There are limited data on the role of SBRT in oligoprogressive breast cancer, and prospective evaluation of this strategy is awaited to inform its safety and efficacy.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".