CURRENT STATUS OF LOCAL SALVAGE THERAPIES FOLLOWING RADIATION FAILURE FOR PROSTATE CANCER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We reviewed the curative options available to patients with local failure after radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer and identified the patients best suited for such salvage therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search of English language publications was done using the key terms salvage, prostatectomy, cryosurgery, brachytherapy and radiation failure. RESULTS: Salvage radical prostatectomy offers 5-year biochemical relapse-free rates between 55 and 69%. Higher complication rates are reported with salvage compared to primary radical prostatectomy, including rectal injuries, bladder neck contracture and urinary incontinence. Cryosurgery biochemical response rates vary according to the definition of failure but they are generally lower than those of salvage radical prostatectomy. The local control rates of cryosurgery are acceptable. Major complications related to cryotherapy are urinary incontinence, impotence, pelvic pain and urinary retention. Experience with salvage brachytherapy has been limited but some success has been reported in terms of biochemical control. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage prostatectomy for localized radiation failure is a good option in the patient with a life expectancy of at least 10 years, preradiation and preoperative prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml, and localized preoperative stage with the understanding that complication risks are higher. Salvage cryotherapy is a valid option in patients with preoperative prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml and Gleason score less than 8, clinical stage less than T3 who are hormonally naive. Salvage cryotherapy is especially suited for older patients with some comorbidities who are still considered to be at reasonable anesthetic risk. The study of brachytherapy remains in its infancy and the efficacy of this modality remains to be determined.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".