Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Urethral stricture disease is poorly understood in prostate cancer survivors who have undergone radiation or ablative treatments. We review the cause and incidence of urethral strictures (excluding bladder neck contracture) in this setting, as well as risk factors and treatment options. RECENT FINDINGS: Stricture rates differ for various modalities of radiation therapy, with the highest rate in high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Risk factors include higher dose of radiation delivered to prostate apex, radiation delivered per treatment, and prior transurethral resection of prostate. Cryoablation and high-intensity focused ultrasound of the prostate also carry high risk of urethral stricture formation, particularly in the salvage setting. Dilation or direct vision incision of the urethra can be utilized as a temporizing technique, with frequent recurrence. Urethral stenting is also an option; however, this is associated with a high rate of incontinence. Urethroplasty has durable outcomes for radiation-induced strictures, with a preference for excision and primary anastomosis because of the bulbomembranous location and relatively short length of these strictures. Salvage radical prostatectomy has been described in a small series as treatment for posterior urethral strictures and bladder neck contractures resulting from ablative therapies. SUMMARY: Prostate cancer survivors treated with radiation or ablative therapies are at risk for urethral stricture formation. Urethroplasty is a feasible and durable treatment option and should be considered in the appropriate patient.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".