Incorporating Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy into the Multidisciplinary Management of Renal Cell Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has challenged the conventional wisdom surrounding the radioresistance of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). In the past decade, there has been a significant accumulation of clinical data to support the safety and efficacy of SABR in RCC. Herein, we review the use of SABR across the spectrum of RCC. We performed an online search of the Pubmed database from January 1990 through April 2023. Studies of SABR/stereotactic radiosurgery targeting primary, extracranial, and intracranial metastatic RCC were included. For SABR in non-metastatic RCC, this includes its use in small renal masses, larger renal masses, and inferior vena cava tumor thrombi. In the metastatic setting, SABR can be used at diagnosis, for oligometastatic and oligoprogressive disease, and for symptomatic reasons. Notably, SABR can be used for both the primary renal tumor and metastasis-directed therapy. Management of RCC is evolving rapidly, and the role that SABR will have in this landscape is being assessed in a number of ongoing prospective clinical trials. The objective of this narrative review is to summarize the evidence corroborating the use of SABR in RCC.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".