Angiosarcoma of the prostate: a more frequent finding in the future owing to radiotherapy? A literature review with treatment implications based on a case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: An increase in the incidence of prostate angiosarcoma may be expected owing to the exponential increase in the use of radiotherapy for prostate carcinoma in recent decades and the possible aetiology of radiation exposure on the development of angiosarcoma in general. The objective of this study was to give an overview of cases in the literature based on a case report of prostate angiosarcoma in a hospital in the Netherlands, and to discuss optimal treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All (related) articles In PubMed/Medline and Embase with possible cases of angiosarcoma were screened on title and abstract. A case of prostate angiosarcoma identified in the authors' institution was included. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 13 cases of prostate angiosarcoma. The earliest six publications lack essential data. Four patients had a history of radiotherapy. The present patient developed angiosarcoma following brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Therapy consisted of radical surgery with or without chemotherapy in five cases. In eight cases curative therapy was not reported or not possible. Mean follow-up was only 1 year. Four patients died within 1 year of diagnosis, irrespective of treatment choice. One patient, treated with a combination of radical surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, was still alive 36 months after therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The findings confirm that prostate angiosarcoma is mostly radiation induced. This patient is the first case of prostate angiosarcoma after primary brachytherapy. Angiosarcoma may occur more often in the future owing to widespread use of brachytherapy and radiotherapy of the prostate. Current guidelines on management of angiosarcoma suggest radical surgery in local disease as the primary treatment of choice.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".