Adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy: Genito-Urinary Radiation Oncologists of Canada Consensus Statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
95centres of excellence, 10-year relapse rates are 30%-50%, 6,7 and 40% of patients will subsequently receive second-line androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).8 Survival rates for prostate cancer can be as high as 80% after 25 years, owing to the success of surgery and the indolent nature of prostate cancer in many.6 At radical prostatectomy, adverse features that predict increased risk for relapse include positive margins, extracapsular extension, high Gleason grade and seminal vesicle involvement.9 Positive margin rates vary not only with presurgery risk group but also with the case load of the surgeon and institution.8 In case series, typical margin positivity rates vary from 10% to 30%. 10 It is therefore logical to consider whether a local treatment modality (adjuvant radiation) might provide additional benefits to cure where the risk of locally persistent disease exists.Factors predictive of local relapse after radical prostatectomy include positive margins and extracapsular extension of the tumour.Other adverse features, such as positive seminal vesicles and high Gleason grade, would be expected to predict increased risk of both local and metastatic relapse.Local recurrence remains a significant problem after surgery.In patients with a rising PSA postoperatively, careful ultrasoundguided biopsies reveal cancer in 54% of those with negative CT scan and bone scan.11 Of those who fail locally, one-third have had apparently negative margins at the time of surgery.11 Molecular marker studies have shown that, even with negative pathological margins according to hematoxylin and eosin stains, 25% showed positive margins when molecular markers were used.12 Numerous small retrospective, and in some Adjuvant radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy: Genito-Urinary Radiation Oncologists of Canada Consensus Statement CONSENSUS
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".