Safety and Efficacy of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Ultra-central Thoracic Tumors: A Single Center Retrospective Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the toxicity and efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for ultracentral thoracic tumors at our institution. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with ultracentral lung tumors or nodes, defined as having the planning target volume (PTV) overlapping or abutting the central bronchial tree and/or esophagus, treated at our institution with SBRT between 2009 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. All SBRT plans were generated with the goal of creating homogenous dose distributions. The primary endpoint was incidence of SBRT-related grade ≥3 toxicity, defined using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (V5.0). Secondary endpoints included local failure (LF), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival. Competing risk analysis was used to estimate incidence and identify predictors of severe toxicity and LF, while the Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate PFS and OS. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients receiving 162 ultracentral courses of SBRT were included. The most common prescription was 50 Gy in 5 fractions (42%), with doses ranging from 30 to 55 Gy in 5 fractions (BED10 range, 48-115 Gy). The incidence of severe toxicity was 9.4% at 3 years. The most common severe toxicity was pneumonitis (n = 4). There was 1 possible treatment-related death from pneumonitis/pneumonia. Predictors of severe toxicity included increased PTV size, decreased PTV V95%, lung V5 Gy, and lung V20 Gy. The incidence of LF was 14% at 3 years. Predictors of LF included younger age and greater volume of overlap between the PTV and esophagus. The median PFS was 8.8 months, while the median overall survival was 44.0 months. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest case series of ultracentral thoracic SBRT to date, homogenously prescribed SBRT was associated with relatively low rates of severe toxicity and LF. Predictors of toxicity should be interpreted in the context of the heterogeneity in toxicities observed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".