MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4387206866 · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.06.1649

Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Hematological Malignancies during COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond

2023· article· en· W4387206866 on OpenAlexaff
Febin Antony, A. Dubey, Pascal Lambert, Pamela Skrabek, Naseer Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyInternal medicineLymphomaCumulative incidenceRetrospective cohort studyIncidence (geometry)CohortCancerCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)OncologyNuclear medicineGastroenterologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose/Objective(s) Conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (RT) has shown to have excellent local control in hematological malignancies (HM). Up to date there is none or scant literature about the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) for the treatment of HM, this single institution study analyzed the efficacy of HFRT in HM. We hypothesized that HFRT in HM will result in a similar local tumor control that has been reported with standard fractionated RT. Materials/Methods In this retrospective study, we analyzed the data from patients within the provincial cancer registry diagnosed with HM treated with a curative intent using HFRT regimens suggested by International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group between 2020-2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Primary outcome of the study was overall response rate (ORR), measured as complete response (CR), partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) within the irradiated field determined radiologically or clinically post completion of RT. Secondary end point was freedom from local progression (FFLP), calculated from the date of initiation of RT to the first date among in-field progression, death, and last follow-up. Summary statistics were used to describe cohort and treatment characteristics. FFLP was calculated by 1 minus cumulative incidence accounting for competing risk (i.e., death). Results Of the 36 patients included for analysis, 18 were aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), 9 were indolent NHL, 6 were Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and 3 were other HM. Among them 25 had consolidation RT and 11 had definitive RT. HFRT daily dose per fraction ranged from 2.67 Gy to 5 Gy and total dose regimens ranged from 18 Gy to 42.5 Gy in 6 - 17 fractions and median equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2) for alpha/beta = 10Gy was 36 Gy (±7.5). ORR for the entire cohort was 94.4%. With a median follow up of 13.2 months, FFLP at one year for the entire cohort was 91.5% and death without infield progression was 8.7%. Among the 4 patients who had in radiation field recurrence, 2 had aggressive NHL and 2 had HL. No grade 3 or 4 acute toxicities were reported. Conclusion This retrospective study using HFRT showed an ORR and FFLP comparable to historical studies using standard fractionation. Further long-term follow-up is warranted to confirm these findings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics→Same topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts→French-language works237,207→