MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392059496 · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.01.213

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Sacral Metastases: Deviation From Recommended Target Volume Delineation Increases the Risk of Local Failure

2024· article· en· W4392059496 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Moore-Palhares, Kang Zeng, Chia‐Lin Tseng, Hanbo Chen, Sten Myrehaug, Hany Soliman, Pejman Maralani, Jérémie Larouche, Husain Shakil, Katarzyna J. Jerzak, Mark Ruschin, Beibei Zhang, Eshetu G. Atenafu, Arjun Sahgal, Jay Detsky

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContouringSacrumGuidelineRadiation therapyRadiologyHazard ratioMagnetic resonance imagingAdverse effectClinical endpointNuclear medicineSurgeryConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Although spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is considered a standard of care in the mobile spine, mature evidence reporting outcomes specific to sacral metastases is lacking. Furthermore, there is a need to validate the existing sacral SBRT international consensus contouring guidelines to define the optimal contouring approach. We report mature rates of local failure (LF), adverse events, and the effect of contouring deviations in the largest experience to date specific to sacrum SBRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Consecutive patients who underwent sacral SBRT from 2010 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The primary endpoint was magnetic resonance imaging-based LF with a focus on adherence to target volume contouring recommendations. Secondary endpoints included vertebral compression fracture and neural toxicity. RESULTS: Of the 215 sacrum segments treated in 112 patients, most received 30 Gy/4 fractions (51%), 24 Gy/2 fractions (31%), or 30 Gy/5 fractions (10%). Sixteen percent of segments were nonadherent to the consensus guideline with a more restricted target volume (undercontoured). The median follow-up was 21.4 months (range, 1.5-116.9 months). The cumulative incidence of LF at 1 and 2 years was 18.4% and 23.1%, respectively. In those with guideline adherent versus nonadherent contours, the LF rate at 1 year was 15.1% versus 31.4% and at 2 years 18.8% versus 40.0% (hazard ratio [HR], 2.5; 95% CI, 1.4-4.6; P = .003), respectively. On multivariable analysis, guideline nonadherence (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.3-4.7; P = .008), radioresistant histology (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.4-4.1; P < .001), and extraosseous extension (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.3-4.7; P = .005) predicted for an increased risk of LF. The cumulative incidence of vertebral compression fracture was 7.1% at 1 year and 12.3% at 2 years. Seven patients (6.3%) developed peripheral nerve toxicity, of whom 4 had been previously radiated. CONCLUSIONS: Sacral SBRT is associated with high efficacy rates and an acceptable toxicity profile. Adhering to consensus guidelines for target volume delineation is recommended to reduce the risk of LF.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*PhysicsSame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207