The role of intermittent androgen suppression in biochemically recurrent or newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the current status of intermittent androgen suppression in the management of biochemically recurrent or newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer with respect to two recently reported multicenter phase III randomized trials. RECENT FINDINGS: The Canadian lead trial for men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after definitive radiotherapy (National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group PR7) randomized 1386 men and found a hazard ratio for death of 1.03 at a median follow-up of 6.9 years, declaring intermittent therapy noninferior to continuous for the trial algorithm. Over the same time frame, the South West Oncology Group (SWOG) compared continuous to intermittent therapy in metastatic prostate cancer. Although results were very similar in absolute terms, at 9.8 years follow-up, the hazard ratio for death was 1.1 in favor of the continuous approach. Intermittent therapy could not be declared noninferior. Both trials reported improved quality of life in the intermittent arms. SUMMARY: There is a small increased risk for death from prostate cancer with the use of intermittent androgen suppression in both these patient populations. This situation may be especially true for higher Gleason score tumors (8-10) and in men with symptomatic bone metastases. Quality-of-life benefits may make this approach worthwhile for some individuals.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".