Palliative radiotherapy in pancreatic cancer: a retrospective study of 100 cases and regional patterns of practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is often incurable and can be associated with significant pain and abdominal symptoms. This study aims to characterize the symptomatic burden of patients with pancreatic cancer receiving palliative radiotherapy and the corresponding symptomatic and radiographic responses. METHODS: Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma referred to BC Cancer for palliative radiation from 2006 to 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards model were used to evaluate variables predictive of symptomatic response and survival respectively. RESULTS: One hundred patients were identified. The majority had good performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score 0-1, 82%), received only one line of chemotherapy (91%), and presented with pain (84%). The most common radiotherapy prescription was 30 Gy in 10 fractions (22%). Pain improved in 69%, early satiety and bloating improved in 59%, and hemostasis was achieved in 73% of cases. Treatment toxicity occurred in 47% of cases and were predominantly grade 1-2 with 1 case of grade 3 toxicity. Median survival was 5.1 months. Tumor size, radiotherapy dose, and concurrent chemotherapy were not predictive of symptomatic response nor prolonged survival. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest cohort to date evaluating palliative radiotherapy in pancreatic adenocarcinoma, radiation was efficacious in improving pain and gastrointestinal bleeding and was generally well-tolerated. Additional studies on the efficacy and optimal prescriptions for palliative radiotherapy are necessary in this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".