Palliative Radiation Treatment in Patients Managed With Advanced/Interventional Pain Therapy such as Pump-delivered Continuous Opioids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: The study aim was to analyze the feasibility and efficacy of palliative radiotherapy in patients receiving advanced/interventional pain therapy, such as epidural or spinal anesthesia or subcutaneous pump delivery of opioids. Endpoints such as pain relief, treatment in the last month of life and survival were evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Different baseline parameters including but not limited to age and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) were assessed. Outcomes were abstracted from electronic health records. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) was utilized to score pain intensity. RESULTS: The study included 48 patients, 44 of whom completed radiotherapy as prescribed. Device malfunction was not observed. Overall, 31 patients (65%) had journal notes available allowing for evaluation of pain relief. Twenty-six of 31 experienced pain relief (54% in the intention-to-treat population of 48 study patients). Twelve patients (25%) stopped interventional pain therapy and were converted to transdermal or oral drugs. Median survival was 1.6 months. Forty-four percent had received radiotherapy during the last month of life. Sixty-four percent of patients with ECOG PS 3-4 had received radiotherapy during the last month of life, compared to 22% of those with ECOG PS <3, p=0.004. CONCLUSION: Palliative radiotherapy was feasible in this setting, but given the short median survival and high likelihood of treatment during the last month of life, patient selection and choice of fractionation regimen should be optimized. The record review identified several patients who experienced worthwhile pain relief, sometimes leading to conversion of pain therapy back to non-invasive oral or transdermal application.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".