MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057330315 · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.2626

Tadalafil for Prevention of Erectile Dysfunction After Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

2014· article· en· W2057330315 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas M. Pisansky, Stephanie L. Pugh, Richard E. Greenberg, Nadeem Pervez, Daniel Reed, Seth A. Rosenthal, Rex B. Mowat, Adam Raben, Mark K. Buyyounouski, Lisa A. Kachnic, Deborah Watkins Bruner

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsTadalafilMedicineProstate cancerErectile dysfunctionRadiation therapySexual functionPlaceboBrachytherapyRandomizationAdverse effectUrologyExternal beam radiotherapyGynecologyRandomized controlled trialCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Tadalafil is used to treat erectile dysfunction after prostate cancer treatment, but its role as a preventive agent is undefined. OBJECTIVES: To determine primarily whether tadalafil preserved erectile function in men treated with radiotherapy for prostate cancer, and secondarily to determine whether participant- or partner-reported overall sexual function and sexual and marital satisfaction were affected. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Stratified, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group study with 1:1 randomization at 76 community-based and tertiary medical sites in the United States and Canada. Two hundred forty-two participants with intact erectile function scheduled to receive radiotherapy for prostate cancer were recruited between November 2009 and February 2012 with follow-up through March 2013. INTERVENTIONS: One hundred twenty-one participants were assigned 5 mg of tadalafil daily and 121 were assigned placebo for 24 weeks starting with external radiotherapy (63%) or brachytherapy (37%). Participant-reported International Index of Erectile Function response before radiotherapy and at weeks 2 and 4, between weeks 20 and 24, between weeks 28 and 30, and 1 year thereafter. Participants and partners could respond also to the Sexual Adjustment Questionnaire and to the Locke Marital Adjustment Test before radiotherapy, between weeks 20 and 24 and weeks 28 and 30, and at 1 year. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome was off-drug spontaneous erectile function 28 to 30 weeks after radiotherapy started. Secondary end points were spontaneous erection at 1 year; overall sexual function and satisfaction; marital adjustment; and partner-reported satisfaction and marital adjustment at 28 to 30 weeks and 1 year, predictors of tadalafil response; and adverse events. RESULTS: Among 221 evaluable participants, 80 (79%; 95% CI, 70%-88%) assigned to receive tadalafil retained erectile function between weeks 28 and 30 compared with 61 (74%; 95% CI, 63%-85%) assigned to receive placebo (P = .49); an absolute difference of 5% (95% CI, -9% to 19%). A significant difference was also not observed at 1 year (72%; 95% CI, 60%-84% vs 71%; 95% CI, 59%-84%; P = .93). Tadalafil was not associated with significantly improved overall sexual function or satisfaction; a significant difference was not observed in any domain subscale. Partners of men assigned tadalafil noted no significant effect on sexual satisfaction, and marital adjustment was not significantly improved in participants or partners. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among men undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer, daily use of tadalafil compared with placebo did not result in improved erectile function. These findings do not support daily use of tadalafil to prevent erectile dysfunction in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00931528.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations62
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207