MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1868820390 · doi:10.1200/jco.2015.33.7_suppl.5

Place of short-term androgen deprivation therapy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy: A phase III trial.

2015· article· en· W1868820390 on OpenAlexaff
Abdenour Nabid, Nathalie Carrier, Éric Vigneault, Luís Souhami, Céline Lemaire, Marc-André Brassard, Boris Bahoric, Robert Archambault, F. Vincent, T.V. Nguyen-Huynh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-QuébecCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecCentre de Santé et de Services Sociaux de ChicoutimiHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontMcGill University Health CentreCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerAndrogen deprivation therapyClinical endpointRadiation therapyBicalutamideUrologyRandomized controlled trialProstateLog-rank testProportional hazards modelSurgeryInternal medicineCancerAndrogen receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5 Background: The place of short term androgen deprivation therapy (STADT) in combination with radiation therapy (RT) for patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer (IRPC) remains controversial. The purpose of this prospective, randomized trial was to compare outcomes between patients with IRPC treated with different doses of RT with or without STADT, (PCS III trial, Clinical Trials.gov, NCT00223145). Methods: From December 2000 to September 2010, 600 patients with IRPC were randomized to 6 months of STADT and two levels of prostate RT doses of 70 (arm 1) or 76 Gy (arm 2) versus prostate dose-escalated RT alone at 76 Gy (arm 3). STADT consisted of bicalutamide and gosereline for six months. RT (2 Gy per fraction) started four months after the beginning of STADT. Biochemical failure and disease-free survival (DFS) were primary end-points, with overall survival (OS) as secondary endpoint. DFS and OS rates were estimated with Kaplan-Meier and compared with log rank test and Cox regression. Results: Patient’s characteristics were well balanced among the 3 arms (median age 71 years, median PSA 10 ng/ml, median Gleason score 7). At a median follow-up of 75.4 months, biochemical failure occurred in 84 (14%) patients (arms 1 to 3: 12.5%, 8.0%, 21.5%) with statistical difference between arm 1 and 3 (p = 0.023) and arm 2 and 3 (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between arm 1 and 2. A total of 113 (19%) patients had died with only 6 deaths (1%) attributed to prostate cancer. The 5-/10-year DFS rates were 93%, 97.5% and 86%, and 77%, 90% and 64.5%, respectively. Significant differences in DFS between the treatment arms were observed at 5 years but at 10 years it was observed only between arm 1 and 3 (p=0.01) and arm 2 and 3 (p<0.001). The 5-/10-year OS rates were 91%, 95% and 93%, and 64%, 70% and 78%, respectively. There was no statistical difference in OS between arms at 5 and 10 years. Conclusions: In patients with IRPC, the use of STADT in association with RT, even at lower doses, leads to a superior biochemical control and DFS as compared to dose-escalated RT alone. These outcomes did not translate into an improved OS. Source of Funding: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals Grant. Clinical trial information: NCT00223145.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.153
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207