MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1993139092 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.12272

Radical prostatectomy is the most cost-effective primary treatment modality for men diagnosed with high-risk prostate cancer

2012· article· en· W1993139092 sur OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Yves Fradet

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensUniversité Laval
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésProstate cancerProstatectomyMedicinePrimary treatmentModality (human–computer interaction)UrologyTreatment modalityProstateOncologyCancerInternal medicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Prostate cancer is a common malignancy with 913 000 new cases and 215 000 deaths worldwide in 2008. 1 Risk stratification systems are widely used to assist with patient counselling and guide treatment selection risk, as well to ensure prognostic uniformity in clinical trials and in the evaluation of treatment outcomes.Based on work by D'Amico and colleagues, the Genitourinary Radiation Oncologists of Canada (GUROC) developed a classification system for patients with localized/locally advanced disease based on T category, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at diagnosis and Gleason score. 2,3 High-risk disease is defined as the presence of any of these factors: cT3 or cT4 category, PSA >20 ng/mL or Gleason score ≥8.Patients studied in clinical trials of "high-risk prostate cancer" represent a very heterogeneous group; this group includes patients with clinically organ-confined disease (cT1/T2) with high Gleason score, and/or PSA and also those with locally advanced disease.In the landmark EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer) 22863 trial, overall survival (OS) and local control were considerably improved with the use of 3 years of adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) when given with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in patients with high-risk locally advanced disease (90% had cT3/T4). 4 With a median follow-up of 9.1 years, the survival advantage for combination treatment was substantial with a 10-year OS of 58% in the combined treatment group compared with 40% in the radiotherapy (RT)-only group.However, despite the fact that combined modality treatment was superior to RT alone, the value of local treatment with RT remained under question as it was felt that the benefit seen may have been due to the early introduction of ADT.This has now been explored in three randomized trials (Table 1). [5]6][7] The National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) PR3/ Canadian Urologic Oncology Group (CUOG)/Medical Research Council (MRC) UK PR07 study randomized 1205 patients with high-risk, locally advanced disease to treatment with combined modality therapy (RT and lifelong ADT) or treatment with ADT alone. 5With a median follow-up of 6 years, combined modality treatment resulted in a 23% reduction in overall mortality and a 46% reduction in disease-specific mortality (Fig. 1).There was a 70% reduction in disease progression with the addition of RT, and local disease progression as a first manifestation of overall progression was reduced from 39% to 15%.The side effects of RT were of modest clinical magnitude and serious long-term genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity was uncommon.Patient-reported outcomes also showed that the negative impact of RT on bowel function was of modest clinical magnitude, with recovery scores matching those of patients without RT by 36 months. 8 Similar data have been reported by Widmark and colleagues in the SPCG-7 study; 875 patients with prostate cancer were randomized to endocrine therapy alone or endocrine therapy and EBRT. 6 With a median follow-up of 7.6 years, the cumulative incidence at 10 years for prostate-cancer-specific mortality was 23.9% in the endocrine alone group and 11.9% in the endocrine plus RT group.At 10 years, the cumulative incidence for overall mortality was 39.4% in the endocrine alone group and 29.6% in the endocrine plus RT group for a relative risk of death of 0.6.Urinary, rectal and sexual problems were slightly more frequent in the endocrine plus RT group.About 80% of patients in this study had locally advanced disease.Although this trial, like the NCIC PR3/MRC-UK PR07 study, addressed the issue of impact of RT on survival, there were some differences between the studies.Patients in the SPCG-7 trial had a favourable prognosis.The maximum allowable PSA for trial entry was 70 ng/ml and patients with PSA >11 ng/mL were surgically staged and those with positive pelvic nodes on histological examination were excluded from the study.There were also some differences in the treatment between

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,027
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,091

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0270,007

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,256
Écart entre enseignants0,244 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2012
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Même sujetProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→Travaux en français237 207→