Response to Central Boost Radiation Therapy in Unresectable Retroperitoneal Sarcoma: A Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Optimal treatment of retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) remains undefined. Here, we report the feasibility of using high-dose boost radiation (3-4 Gy) to the central part of the tumor in patients with unresectable RPS. Methods and Materials: Five patients with unresectable RPS were treated with radiation therapy using a central boost technique with intensity modulated radiation therapy. On average, doses of 25 Gy to 45 Gy were delivered to the outer part of the tumor (planning target volume 1), while the central part of the tumor (planning target volume 2) received a 56 Gy to 75 Gy physical dose, which translates to a 62.67 Gy to 87.5 Gy equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2). To minimize radiation toxicity to the adjacent bowel and other organs, we used sequential, interdigitated, or simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) techniques. Results: In this case series of variable RPS histology, the median survival postradiation therapy was 30 months. Three of the 5 patients had clinically stable local disease on follow-up scans, and none of the patients experienced clinically significant toxicity. Conclusions: In summary, in this small case series of 5 patients, treatment was tolerated well, and excellent local responses were observed regardless of the timing of the central boost. Given the high rates of metastatic disease that developed in responding patients, effective systemic therapy will likely be needed for unresectable RPS treated with aggressive radiation therapy to the central part of the tumor.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".