Practice patterns for post-prostatectomy hormonal therapy amongst Canadian radiation oncologists.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Level 1 evidence demonstrates the benefit of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) for pT3 disease and positive margins. The role of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) after PORT remains to be defined from results of ongoing randomized trials. This study was undertaken to determine the factors influencing the current use of ADT after PORT amongst Canadian radiation oncologists. METHODS: An institutional survey was emailed to the Genito-urinary Radiation Oncologists Group of Canada (GUROC), designed to assess the likelihood of prescribing ADT in early and delayed PORT scenarios with variations in disease prognosticators. Analysis used descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Majority (94%) do not routinely advocate ADT with PORT. With early PORT and undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA), respondents (n = 53) indicated that Gleason Score 8-10 (89%), pT3b disease (80%) and high risk D'Amico category (76%) were important considerations. With early PORT and a detectible PSA, important considerations were PSA doubling time (90%), high risk disease (85%), pT3b category (82%) and time to relapse (TTR) of < 3 months (90%). Similar patterns were observed in the context of delayed PORT with importance given to TTR and PSA velocity. Category pT3b was consistently perceived as a poor prognosticator. The majority of respondents prescribe ADT for > 6 months (72%) or > 24 month (48%). CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation was identified among respondents in the importance given to pathological, clinical and biochemical parameters and in considering therapy duration when prescribing ADT with PORT. This demonstrates a need for consensus guidelines and lends support to currently accruing phase III trials designed to answer these questions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".