Management of post-radiation therapy complications among prostate cancer patients: A case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Treating prostate cancer with radiation therapy (RT) is a viable option, albeit with its own profile of complications. We describe a unique Canadian report of a single surgeon (RJB) experience in the management of complex post-prostate cancer RT complications. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who had previously received external beam radiation (XRT) or brachytherapy (BT) for prostate cancer referred to a single surgeon for persistent urologic related difficulties between 2005 and 2010. We used the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) morbidity grading system to assign each patient a 1 to 5 grade for their greatest complication. RESULTS: In total, 15 patients were identified with a total of 43 RT-related complications. Of these 43 complications, 19 presented with obstruction, 8 with radiation failure or new bladder cancer, 6 with hematuria, 5 with intractable incontinence, and 5 with urinary tract infections. These patients required several investigations prior to treatment. Treatment of these complications used surgical, local and medical approaches. In the end, 1 patient had total incontinence, 3 improved their incontinence, 3 had self-catheterization and dilation, 1 voided well, 3 underwent cystectomy with ileo-conduits, 2 had chronic hematuria, and 2 passed away. CONCLUSION: These patients are heavily investigated and require significant resources, including patient visits, diagnostics and treatment modalities to optimize their condition. Cure is not always possible, but the aim to improve quality of life should guide management.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".