PD16-07 POST-PROSTATECTOMY ADJUVANT ANDROGEN DEPRIVATION THERAPY-- PATIENT OPINIONS AND GOALS OF CARE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023PD16-07 POST-PROSTATECTOMY ADJUVANT ANDROGEN DEPRIVATION THERAPY-- PATIENT OPINIONS AND GOALS OF CARE Max Levitt, Ameeta Nayak, Dean Fergusson, Luke Lavallee, Christopher Morash, Ilias Cagiannos, and Rodney Breau Max LevittMax Levitt More articles by this author , Ameeta NayakAmeeta Nayak More articles by this author , Dean FergussonDean Fergusson More articles by this author , Luke LavalleeLuke Lavallee More articles by this author , Christopher MorashChristopher Morash More articles by this author , Ilias CagiannosIlias Cagiannos More articles by this author , and Rodney BreauRodney Breau More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003271.07AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Despite the proven benefit of adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for patients receiving primary radiation, few studies evaluate adjuvant ADT after prostatectomy. We surveyed Canadian prostate cancer patients about adjuvant ADT with the goal of informing an adjuvant ADT clinical trial. METHODS: An electronic survey was devised and distributed using a modified Dillman approach. The survey was sent to members of Prostate Cancer Canada, a patient advocacy group. In addition to demographic information, we asked patients about their experience with prostate cancer, if they received post-operative therapy, and about their opinions to inform the design of an adjuvant ADT clinical trial. The survey was sent on May 2021, and all responses were received by July 2021. RESULTS: Forty patients completed the survey. The average participant age was 71±7.3 years old. The average age at prostate cancer diagnosis was 64±6.7 years. Thirty-eight (95%) patients were previously treated with radical prostatectomy and 24 (60%) subsequently developed biochemical recurrence. If it had been available, 30 (75%) participants indicated that they would have been interested in an adjuvant ADT trial to prevent biochemical recurrence. Most (15; 37.5%) stated that 12 months would be the longest duration of ADT that they would consider. The remainder of participants would have considered up to 6 months (9; 22.5%), up to 18 months (3; 7.5%), up to 24 months (5; 12.5%), or greater than 24 months (8; 20%) of adjuvant ADT. A daily oral tablet (31; 52.5%) or injection every 6 months (9; 22.5%) were favoured in a clinical trial over an injection at shorter time intervals. The most important outcomes for a trial of adjuvant ADT were prevention of cancer related death (38; 95%) and cancer recurrence (37; 92%). If 1 year of adjuvant ADT reduced PSA recurrence by 50%, many (29; 47.5%) stated they would have chosen this intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Few trials have assessed adjuvant ADT after radical prostatectomy and many patients claim they would have been interested in participating in a trial if it had been available. Based on these results, a randomized trial is warranted and patient preferences should be incorporated in trial design. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e491 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Max Levitt More articles by this author Ameeta Nayak More articles by this author Dean Fergusson More articles by this author Luke Lavallee More articles by this author Christopher Morash More articles by this author Ilias Cagiannos More articles by this author Rodney Breau More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,070 | 0,015 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».