MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391515264 · doi:10.1186/s12885-024-11905-7

Single vs. multiple fraction non-inferiority trial of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for the comprehensive treatment of oligo-metastases/progression: SIMPLIFY-SABR-COMET

2024· article· en· W4391515264 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert Olson, Hadassah Abraham, Curtis Leclerc, Alexander Benny, Sarah Baker, Quinn Matthews, Nick Chng, Alanah Bergman, Benjamin Mou, Emma Dunne, Devin Schellenberg, Will Jiang, Elisa Chan, Siavash Atrchian, Shilo Lefresne, Hannah Carolan, Boris Valev, Scott Tyldesley, Andrew Bang, Tanya Berrang, Haley Clark, Fred Hsu, Alexander V. Louie, Andrew Warner, David A. Palma, Doris Howell, Aisling Barry, Laura A. Dawson, Petra Grendarova, Debra Walker, Rishi Sinha, Jillian Tsai, Houda Bahig, Isabelle Thibault, Rashmi Koul, Sashendra Senthi, I. Phillips, Derek Grose, Paul Kelly, John Armstrong, Ronan McDermott, Candice Johnstone, S Vasan, Noel J. Aherne, Stephen Harrow, Mitchell Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cancer · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalCancerCare ManitobaHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentrePositive Living NorthLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreKelowna General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBC Cancer FoundationVarian Medical Systems
KeywordsSABR volatility modelMedicineClinical endpointQuality of life (healthcare)RandomizationRadiation therapyAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialAblative caseInternal medicineOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy delivery regimens can vary between a single fraction (SF) and multiple fractions (MF) given daily for up to several weeks depending on the location of the cancer or metastases. With limited evidence comparing fractionation regimens for oligometastases, there is support to explore toxicity levels to nearby organs at risk as a primary outcome while using SF and MF stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) as well as explore differences in patient-reported quality of life and experience. METHODS: This study will randomize 598 patients in a 1:1 ratio between the standard arm (MF SABR) and the experimental arm (SF SABR). This trial is designed as two randomized controlled trials within one patient population for resource efficiency. The primary objective of the first randomization is to determine if SF SABR is non-inferior to MF SABR, with respect to healthcare provider (HCP)-reported grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) that are related to SABR. Primary endpoint is toxicity while secondary endpoints include lesional control rate (LCR), and progression-free survival (PFS). The second randomization (BC Cancer sites only) will allocate participants to either complete quality of life (QoL) questionnaires only; or QoL questionnaires and a symptom-specific survey with symptom-guided HCP intervention. The primary objective of the second randomization is to determine if radiation-related symptom questionnaire-guided HCP intervention results in improved reported QoL as measured by the EuroQoL-5-dimensions-5levels (EQ-5D-5L) instrument. The primary endpoint is patient-reported QoL and secondary endpoints include: persistence/resolution of symptom reporting, QoL, intervention cost effectiveness, resource utilization, and overall survival. DISCUSSION: This study will compare SF and MF SABR in the treatment of oligometastases and oligoprogression to determine if there is non-inferior toxicity for SF SABR in selected participants with 1-5 oligometastatic lesions. This study will also compare patient-reported QoL between participants who receive radiation-related symptom-guided HCP intervention and those who complete questionnaires alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05784428. Date of Registration: 23 March 2023.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC CancerSame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207