Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Hormone Refractory Prostate Cancer Receiving Gefitinib
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Improvements in quality of life (QoL) and disease-related symptoms are key goals in the treatment of hormone refractory prostate cancer (HRPC). Our aim was to evaluate the impact of gefitinib on QoL of patients with HRPC. METHODS: Patients with HRPC received gefitinib 250 mg daily in addition to antiandrogen plus luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogue for at least 2 months or until disease progression. QoL was evaluated monthly by the European Organisation for Research on the Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Pain was assessed daily by patients and scored by visual analogue scale and analgesic consumption in a diary. Monthly pain intensity was estimated using the McGill-Melzack questionnaire. RESULTS: Analysis of global health status according to EORTC QLQ-C30 showed an improvement of the status in only 6 patients (26%). The greatest benefit in the patients was in the subscale representing prostate-specific concerns (including appetite, pain, physical comfort, and genitourinary function). Improvement of symptoms was correlated with antiandrogen withdrawal. Global health status and QoL decreased during treatment according to tumor progression. CONCLUSIONS: Among HRPC patients treated with gefitinib, improvement of symptoms preceded evidence of biochemical response of prostate-specific antigen following antiandrogen withdrawal. These findings suggest no beneficial effect of gefitinib in QoL improvement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".