Outcome and Prognostic Factors of Dogs Treated for Infiltrative Lipoma Undergoing Radiation Therapy: A Retrospective Multi‐Institutional Study of 29 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canine infiltrative lipomas are localised and invasive tumours that are commonly treated with surgery and/or radiation therapy (RT). There is limited efficacy data for treatment of infiltrative lipomas, and optimal fractionation strategies remain unclear. We retrospectively assessed the outcomes and prognostic factors in a cohort of dogs that underwent intensity modulated or three-dimensional conformal RT for infiltrative lipoma. Twenty-nine dogs were included from four academic institutions. The median total radiation dose prescribed and delivered was 51 Gy (range = 20-57 Gy). Dose per fraction ranged from 2.4 to 4.2 Gy, with a median of 3 Gy. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 1483 days; the median overall survival (OS) was 1483 days. Disease progression was documented in four dogs (14%), all of which received less than 51 Gy (range = 20-50 Gy). Grade V adverse events (AEs) or secondary malignancies were recorded in six dogs (21%; two bones, one skin, one lungs, one urethra and one small intestine AE); assigned attribution was definite (n = 1), probable (n = 2), possible (n = 2) and unlikely (n = 1). Gross tumour volume (GTV) was prognostic for PFS (p < 0.01) while both GTV (p < 0.01) and total radiation dose (p < 0.01) were prognostic for OS (p < 0.01). The number of surgeries and tumour location were not associated with PFS or OS. These findings support the use of RT for long-term local control for unresectable or incompletely excised canine infiltrative lipomas. A higher total radiation dose may result in better long-term local disease control.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".