Secondary hormonal manipulation in castration resistant prostate cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is the single common pathway to prostate cancer death. For men with symptomatic metastatic disease, docetaxel chemotherapy remains a standard of care. However, blood prostatic-specific antigen (PSA) testing allows the identification of CRPC before clinical metastases or symptoms occur, providing a long diagnostic lead time in many patients. The use of secondary hormonal manipulations (SHMs) in men not candidates for immediate chemotherapy is reviewed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed was searched for randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews or clinical practice guidelines addressing SHMs in CRPC. RESULTS: A recent systematic review and practice guideline was identified, and used as the evidence base for this review along with reports from randomized trials over the past year. CONCLUSIONS: The goals of therapy with SHMs should be discussed with patients and their preferences considered. In men without clinical evidence of metastases, gonadal androgen suppression should be maintained and generally patients should be observed. There is no clear evidence that SHMs are of benefit in these patients. Abiraterone plus prednisone is of proven benefit in men with CRPC metastases who are without significant symptoms prior to chemotherapy. Based on emerging data, enzalutamide may be of similar benefit. Use of other SHMs should be based on patient preference and consideration of possible adverse effects; with the exception of low dose prednisone, there is little evidence of benefit supporting their use. For patients accepting these uncertainties, a trial of nonsteroidal antiandrogen may be considered as an adjunct to observation, followed by low dose corticosteroid with immediate or delayed addition of abiraterone (in men with metastases) as a reasonable next step.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".