MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vascular‐targeted photodynamic therapy (padoporfin, WST09) for recurrent prostate cancer after failure of external beam radiotherapy: a study of escalating light doses

2008· article· en· W2095748322 on OpenAlexafffund
John Trachtenberg, Robert Weersink, Sean M. Davidson, Masoom A. Haider, Arjen Bogaards, Mark R. Gertner, Andrew Evans, Avigdor Scherz, J. Savard, Joseph L. Chin, Brian C. Wilson, Mostafa Elhilali

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhotodynamic Therapy Research Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityMcGill UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkToronto Metropolitan UniversityPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNational Cancer InstitutePrincess Margaret Hospital FoundationOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsMedicineProstateProstate cancerRadiation therapyMagnetic resonance imagingBiopsyAblationExternal beam radiotherapyUrologyPhotosensitizerProstate-specific antigenPhotodynamic therapyNuclear medicineProstate biopsyRadiologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To report on the efficacy of TOOKAD (WST 09; NegmaLerads, Magny-Les-Hameaux, France) vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (VTP) as a method of whole-prostate ablation in patients with recurrent localized prostate cancer after the failure of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received a fixed photosensitizer dose of 2 mg/kg and patient-specific light doses as determined by computer-aided treatment planning. Up to six cylindrical light-diffusing delivery fibres were placed transperineally in the prostate under ultrasonographic guidance. The treatment response was assessed by measuring serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, lesion formation (avascular areas of tissue) measured on 7-day gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and a 6-month biopsy. RESULTS: Treatment of the whole prostate was possible with minimal effects on surrounding organs. An increased light dose improved the tissue response, with MRI-detectable avascular lesions, encompassing up to 80% of the prostate in some patients. A complete response, as determined by the 6-month biopsy, required that patients received light doses of at least 23 J/cm(2) in 90% of the prostate volume (D(90) > 23 J/cm(2)). Of the 13 patients who received at least this light dose, eight were biopsy-negative at 6 months. In this group of eight patients, PSA levels decreased and did so to negligible levels for those patients with a baseline PSA level of <5 ng/mL. Side-effects were modest and self-limited in most patients; there were recto-urethral fistulae in two patients, one of which closed spontaneously. CONCLUSIONS: TOOKAD-VTP can produce large avascular regions in the irradiated prostate, and result in a complete negative-biopsy response at high light doses. A response rate of more than half for those patients receiving the highest light doses shows the clinical potential of TOOKAD-VTP to manage recurrence of prostatic carcinoma after EBRT.

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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations167
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicPhotodynamic Therapy Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207