Comparative morbidity of ablative energy-based salvage treatments for radio-recurrent prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We compared the morbidity of whole gland salvage ablation using cryotherapy (CRYO) and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for radio recurrent prostate cancer at a single centre over a 17-year period. METHODS: Patients were divided in 3 cohorts. Group 1 included the first 65 patients treated with CRYO (1995-1998); Group 2 included the last 65 patients treated with CRYO (2002-2004), and Group 3 included 65 patients treated with HIFU (2006-2011). We analyzed the complications reported within at least 90 days of treatment or up to the last follow-up. RESULTS: We tallied Clavien grade complications. For Groups 1, 2 and 3, we recorded the following Clavien I-II complications: 78, 49 and 13, respectively. For Clavien grade IIIa, 2, 5 and 4 for Groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. For Clavien grade IIIb, 8, 2 and 3 for Groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Clavien grade II complications were statistically higher in Group 1 versus Group 2 (p = 0.005) and in Group 2 versus Group 3 (p = 0.0001). The rate of mild-moderate incontinence was significantly higher in the CRYO group compared to the HIFU cohort (p ≤ 0.05). The rate of urinary retention was significantly higher in Group 2 compared to Group 3 (p = 0.0005). The rates of severe incontinence (range: 1.5%-5%), need for surgical intervention (uniform at 1.5%), and recto-urethral fistulae (range: 1.5%-3%) were not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: CRYO was associated with higher overall morbidity. The morbidity during the early experience with HIFU was lower than both subgroups of CRYO. This may reflect the advancement of technology or cumulative learning experience.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".