MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Robotic radical prostatectomy as the initial step in multimodal therapy for men with high‐risk localised prostate cancer: initial experience of 160 men

2011· article· en· W1586780415 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen S. Connolly, Paul Cathcart, Paul Gilmore, Michael Kerger, Helen Crowe, Justin S. Peters, Declan G. Murphy, Anthony J. Costello

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsRichmond Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAndrogen deprivation therapyMedicineProstatectomyProstate cancerRadiation therapyLaparoscopic radical prostatectomyStage (stratigraphy)Multimodal therapyUrologyCancerSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study Type – Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4 What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? The choice of therapy with high‐risk localised prostate cancer is difficult and, in the stark absence of any randomised trials, comparative retrospective analyses of case series continue to be necessary. Radical surgery has been considered by many to be inferior to a combination of radiotherapy (RT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), but this changing perhaps coincidentally with the widespread acceptance of robot‐assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy surgery (RALP). Further evidence has now described the long‐term toxicities related to ADT, and this has strengthened a desire amongst many to at least defer, if not avoid, ADT unless absolutely necessary. This article presents a single‐centre experience of RALP in the setting of high‐risk localised disease, and concludes that RALP incorporating the use of post‐operative RT represents a strong perhaps optimum management strategy. OBJECTIVES To report the outcome of robotic‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) for men with localised high‐risk prostate cancer at diagnosis. Although commonly managed by radiotherapy (RT) with prolonged androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT), we hypothesize that initiation of multimodal therapy with RALP is oncologically efficacious and may allow many men to avoid ADT. PATIENTS AND METHODS Between December 2003 and September 2010, 1480 men underwent RALP of whom 160 fulfilled the National Comprehensive Control Network criteria for high‐risk disease (prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) >20 ng/mL and/or clinical stage, cT ≥ 3 and/or biopsy Gleason score ≥8). Biochemical recurrence (postoperative PSA ≥ 0.2) was used to assess outcome after RALP monotherapy. Treatment failure was defined as either a rising PSA level after salvage RT or the initiation of ADT. RESULTS The mean age ± standard deviation was 63.1 ± 6.3 years. Median PSA level was 9.95 ng/mL (interquartile range 6.0–21.4). Analysis of prostatectomy specimen showed Gleason 8–10 cancers in 65 (41%), and extracapsular disease, pT ≥ 3, in 96 (60%) of which seminal vesicle invasion was evident in 36 (23%). Downgrading by prostatectomy occurred in 64 (40% of total group) and five (3%) were downstaged to pT2 disease. By contrast, any upgrading occurred in 29 (18% of total group) and upstaging occurred in 68 (43%). The overall positive surgical margin rate was 38%, correlating with stage pT2 (15%) or pT3 (53%). With median follow‐up of 26.2 months (interquartile range 5.5–37.3), two non‐cancer‐related deaths have occurred (overall survival 98.8%; cancer‐specific survival 100%), and biochemical recurrence has occurred in 53 men (33%). RALP surgery has served as monotherapy ( n = 117, 73%), or has been followed by salvage RT ( n = 24, 15%) and/or ADT ( n = 43, 27%). Overall 2‐year and 3‐year treatment failure was 31 and 41%, respectively. Serum PSA level was the only independent predictor of overall treatment failure (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, P = 0.001) although a strong trend was observed for both clinical stage (HR 1.22, P = 0.058) and the number of positive biopsy cores on transrectal biopsy (HR 1.06, P = 0.057). CONCLUSIONS RALP incorporating the use of postoperative RT is a good multimodal management strategy for men with this aggressive variant of prostate cancer. At median follow‐up in excess of 2 years, we found low rates of treatment failure enabling a high proportion of men to remain free of ADT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207