Long-term Followup of a Randomized Trial of 0 Versus 3 Months of Neoadjuvant Androgen Ablation Before Radical Prostatectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In 1992 we initiated a national randomized prospective trial of 3 months of cyproterone acetate before radical prostatectomy compared to prostatectomy alone. Initial results indicated a 50% decrease in the rate of positive surgical margins. This decrease did not translate into a difference in prostate specific antigen (PSA) progression at 3 years. This report is on the long-term outcome (median followup 6 years) of this cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, randomized, open label trial compared 100 mg cyproterone acetate 3 times daily for 3 months before surgery to surgery alone. Randomization occurred between January 1993 and April 1994. Patients were stratified according to clinical stage, baseline serum PSA and Gleason sum. A total of 213 patients were accrued. Biochemical progression was defined as 2 consecutive detectable PSAs (greater than 0.2 ng/ml) at least 4 weeks apart, re-treatment or death from prostate cancer. RESULTS: A total of 34 (33.6%) patients undergoing surgery only and 42 (37.5%) patients given neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) had biochemical recurrence during the median followup of 6 years. Despite the significant pathological down staging in this study, there was no significant difference in number of patients with no evidence of biochemical disease (bNED) survival (p = 0.732). A bNED survival benefit favoring NHT was seen in men with a baseline PSA greater than 20 (p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: After 6 years of followup there was no overall benefit with 3 months of NHT. Improved bNED survival was seen in the highest risk PSA group (PSA greater than 20). The possibility that high risk patients may benefit from NHT warrants further investigation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".