MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

High‐intensity focused ultrasound for prostate cancer: comparative definitions of biochemical failure

2009· article· en· W1997394967 on OpenAlexaff
Andreas Blana, Stephen Brown, C. Chaussy, Giario Conti, James A. Eastham, Roman Ganzer, F.J. Murat, G. Pasticier, Xavier Rébillard, John C. Rewcastle, Cary N. Robertson, S. Thüroff, John F. Ward

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerProstatectomyHigh-intensity focused ultrasoundUrologyBiopsyRadiation therapyProstate-specific antigenProstateCancerOncologyRadiologyInternal medicineUltrasound

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To compare the specificity and sensitivity of different definitions of biochemical failure in patients treated with high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for prostate cancer, to identify the most accurate predictor of clinical failure after HIFU. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutively treated patients who underwent HIFU between October 1997 and July 2006 at two centres (Lyon, France; and Regensburg, Germany) were prospectively maintained within a central database and retrospectively reviewed for this study. Clinical failure was defined as a positive prostate biopsy after treatment, radiographic evidence of lymphatic or bony metastatic disease, or salvage treatment for prostate cancer (surgery, radiation, hormonal therapy or second HIFU). The serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values after HIFU were assessed as a biochemical surrogate of a therapeutic success or failure. PSA threshold values, 'PSA nadir plus', PSA velocity, PSA doubling time and the American Society or Therapeutic Radiotherapy and Oncology and Phoenix definition of biochemical failure were all considered. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of each biochemical definition for predicting clinical failure were determined. RESULTS: The data from 285 patients (stage <or= T2, PSA <15 ng/mL, Gleason score <or=7) were analysed. The median (range) follow-up was 4.7 (2-10.9) years. The median PSA nadir was 0.13 ng/mL, which occurred at a median of 12.9 weeks after HIFU, and the median PSA at the last follow-up was 0.76 (1.6-2.7) ng/mL. Clinical failure occurred in 71 patients (25%); 24 due to a positive biopsy and 47 through the use of an additional therapy. Biochemical events that best predicted clinical failure were 'PSA nadir plus' values of 1.1-1.3 ng/mL, PSA velocities of <0.3 ng/mL/year and PSA doubling times of 1.25-1.75 years. CONCLUSION: A new definition of biochemical failure that is specific to patients treated with HIFU therapy is established, i.e. the 'Stuttgart definition', the 'PSA nadir plus 1.2 ng/mL'.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations153
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207