MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Hematologic Malignancies during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond

2023· preprint· en· W4389484785 on OpenAlexaff
Febin Antony, Arbind Dubey, Pamela Skrabek, Lung Fung Tsang, Pascal Lambert, Bohdan Bybel, Naseer Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsCancerCare ManitobaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyLymphomaNuclear medicineDose fractionationStage (stratigraphy)Internal medicineGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Radiotherapy is integral in the management of hematological malignancies (HM). Standard radiotherapy dose fractionation regimens range between 20-50 Gy in 10-25 fractions over 2-5 weeks. This study presents the outcomes of patients with HM treated with hypofractionation radiotherapy (HFRT) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Patients (N=36) were treated with HFRT between January 2020 and September 2022. The outcomes measured were the overall response rate (ORR), freedom from local progression (FFLP), and overall survival (OS). Results Median follow-up was 13.2 months. Thirty-three patients (92%) had non-Hodgkin (NHL) or Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Eighteen patients (50%) had aggressive and 9 (25%) had indolent NHL. Nineteen patients (53%) presented with stage I/II and 15(42%) with stage III/IV disease. Twenty-five (69.4%) and eleven (30%) received consolidative and definitive RT, respectively. Twenty patients (56%) received treatment to the neck and/or thorax, and 9 (25%) to the abdomen or pelvis. Total dose ranged from 18 to 42.5 Gy in 6-17 fractions/ 2.67-5 Gy per fraction. Median dose in 2 Gy fractions for an alpha/beta (α/β) ratio of 10 amounted to 39 Gy (SD ± 13.86), and 43.6 Gy (SD ± 12) for an α/β of 3. The most commonly used fractionation scheme was 39 Gy in 13 fractions. ORR was 94.4% for the entire cohort, and 100, 94.4, and 83.3% for indolent NHL, aggressive NHL, and HL patients. Two-year FFLP was 76% (95% CI: 34-93%) for the entire cohort, and 100, 87 (95%CI: 56.4-96.5%) and 42% (95% CI: 1.1-84.3%) for the indolent NHL, aggressive NHL, and HL patients. Two-year OS for the entire cohort was 80% (95% CI:59.9-90.5%), and 100, 66.1 (95% CI: 36.4-84.4%) and 100% for the indolent NHL, aggressive NHL, and HL patients. Only one patient presented with grade two pulmonary toxicity. Conclusion HFRT in HM provides excellent local control without any increase in toxicity.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.358
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.111 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.org→Same topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts→French-language works237,207→