Long‐term side‐effects of intermittent androgen suppression therapy in prostate cancer: results of a phase II study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and tolerability of intermittent androgen suppression therapy (IAS) in prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with recurrent or metastic prostate cancer received cyclical periods of treatment with leuprolide acetate and nilutamide for 8 months, and rest periods. Cycles were repeated at progression until the treatment failed to achieve normal prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. Patients were followed with PSA level, testosterone level, haemoglobin level, weight and bone mineral density evaluations. The median time to treatment failure, recovery from anaemia, or normalization of testosterone level was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: In all, 95 patients received 245 cycles; the median duration of rest periods was 8 months and median time to treatment failure 47 months. Testosterone recovery during rest periods was documented in 117 (61%) of cycles. Anaemia was mild and reported in 33%, 44% and 67% of cycles 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Sexual function recovered during the rest periods in 47% of cycles. There was no significant overall change in body mass index at the end of the treatment period. Osteoporosis was documented in at least one site evaluated in 41 patients (37%). CONCLUSIONS: IAS has the potential to reduce side-effects, including recovery of haemoglobin level, return of sexual function and absence of weight gain at the end of the study period.
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) | 0.001 | 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".