American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for Unresectable Locally Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: The treatment of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) has been informed by more than 5 decades of clinical trials and other relevant literature. However, controversies remain regarding the application of various radiation and systemic therapies in commonly encountered clinical scenarios. Objective: To develop case-referenced consensus and evidence-based guidelines to inform clinical practice in unresectable LA-NSCLC. Evidence Review: The American Radium Society (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) Thoracic Committee guideline is an evidence-based consensus document assessing various clinical scenarios associated with LA-NSCLC. A systematic review of the literature with evidence ratings was conducted to inform the appropriateness of treatment recommendations by the ARS AUC Thoracic Committee for the management of unresectable LA-NSCLC. Findings: Treatment appropriateness of a variety of LA-NSCLC scenarios was assessed by a consensus-based modified Delphi approach using a range of 3 points to 9 points to denote consensus agreement. Committee recommendations were vetted by the ARS AUC Executive Committee and a 2-week public comment period before official approval and adoption. Standard of care management of good prognosis LA-NSCLC consists of combined concurrent radical (60-70 Gy) platinum-based chemoradiation followed by consolidation durvalumab immunotherapy (for patients without progression). Planning and delivery of locally advanced lung cancer radiotherapy usually should be performed using intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques. A variety of palliative and radical fractionation schedules are available to treat patients with poor performance and/or pulmonary status. The salvage therapy for a local recurrence after successful primary management is complex and likely requires both multidisciplinary input and shared decision-making with the patient. Conclusions and Relevance: Evidence-based guidance on the management of various unresectable LA-NSCLC scenarios is provided by the ARS AUC to optimize multidisciplinary patient care for this challenging patient population.
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 | 0.045 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".