Bridging the care gap: radiation therapy in elderly and frail cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to address the gap in radiation therapy (RT) care for elderly cancer patients. It will discuss the barriers to implementing effective RT in elderly and frail patients with a focus on breast cancer and metastatic settings. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies indicate that SBRT provides better pain control for bone metastases compared to cEBRT, but elderly patients are underrepresented in these trials. Evidence on the effectiveness of geriatric assessment tools in predicting RT tolerance and toxicity is mixed, with some studies showing a correlation while others do not. Comprehensive geriatric assessments, though promising, are often impractical due to time and resource constraints. SUMMARY: There is a critical need for more inclusive research to better understand the risks and benefits of RT in elderly patients. Developing streamlined geriatric assessment tools and integrating them into clinical practice can enhance treatment personalization. Future studies should prioritize elderly populations to generate robust data, thereby improving RT outcomes and quality of life for this growing patient group.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".