Radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy: A single-centre radiation oncology experience in trends of referral and treatment practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to assess whether referral and treatment practices have changed since publication of the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) 8794 Trial in 2009, the first randomized study to demonstrate an overall survival advantage of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all medical charts of men who received RT at our institution between 2004 and 2014 following RP. All RT was conducted by a single radiation oncologist (DT). We divided the cohort into 2 groups according to first referral date before or after the SWOG 8794 trial publication (i.e., before 2010 and after 2010). RESULTS: Medical charts were available for 161/165 patients (97.6%). RP was performed at the same institution in 58% of cases. The median time between surgery and first referral for RT decreased significantly from 672 days (interquartile range [IQR] 295-1449) before 2010 to 300 days (IQR 225-1023) after 2010 (p = 0.04). This trend was associated with lower median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at RT referral (0.26 μg/L [IQR 0.17-0.48] vs. 0.46 μg/L [IQR 0.25-0.90], respectively; p = 0.001). Androgen-deprivation therapy with RT nearly tripled over time from 13% before 2010 to 37% after 2010 (p = 0.003). Throughout the study period, the time interval between surgery and RT initiation was positively correlated with pT-stage (p = 0.001), Gleason score (p = 0.005) and PSA doubling time (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: At our tertiary-referral academic institution, post-RP patients are notably referred earlier for RT and at lower PSA values compared to men treated prior to 2010. Further study is necessary to evaluate this impact on biochemical recurrence-free survival.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".