MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Single‐session primary high‐intensity focused ultrasonography treatment for localized prostate cancer: biochemical outcomes using third generation‐based technology

2012· article· en· W2097046182 on OpenAlexaff
Jehonathan H. Pinthus, Forough Farrokhyar, Magdy Hassouna, Edward A. Woods, Kaitlyn Whelan, Bobby Shayegan, William Orovan

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerHigh-intensity focused ultrasoundProstateRadiation therapyProspective cohort studyUrologyCancerProstate-specific antigenAndrogen deprivation therapyCohortSurgeryInternal medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? The experience with HIFU as a minimally invasive treatment for localized prostate cancer is relatively new and most reports are from European centres. Our study is unique in five regards: 1. Data was collected prospectively. 2. All patients were treated with contemporary technology. 3. Outcomes are reported after a single HIFU session using two definitions of biochemical failure that have the ability to predict longer-term clinical failure after primary ablative therapies for prostate cancer (Stuttgart definition for HIFU and Horwitz definition for radiation). 4. All patients were treated in a single centre. 5. No patients underwent peri-HIFU TURP. The present study represents the largest North American prospective cohort of primary HIFU for prostate cancer with mid-term oncological outcome data. OBJECTIVE: To assess 4-year biochemical failure (BCF) rates in patients after high-intensity focused ultrasonography (HIFU) treatment using the Horwitz and Stuttgart definitions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 447 consecutive patients were treated with a single session of HIFU between May 2005 and December 2010. Follow-up included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement every 3 months during the first year and every 6 months thereafter. Patients who had previously received radiation, androgen deprivation or HIFU therapy, and patients with <2 consecutive PSA measurements were excluded. BCF was reported using the Stuttgart (PSA nadir + 1.2 ng/mL rising) and the Horwitz (two consecutive increases of at least 0.5 ng/mL) definitions. RESULTS: In all, 402 patients met the inclusion criteria and the median (range) follow-up was 24 (6-48) months. Of these patients, 183 (45.5%) had low and 219 (54.5%) had intermediate D'Amico's risk stratification disease. Mean and median absolute PSA nadir levels were 0.36 ± 0.69 and 0.1 ng/mL (Q(1):0, Q(3):0.37), respectively and these were achieved in median time of 3 months. Overall 4-year mean (range) BCF-free rates were 68 (61-75)% and 72 (68-77)% according to the Stuttgart and Horwitz definitions at 4 years, respectively. Mean (range) BCF-free rates were significantly higher for a PSA nadir ≤0.5 ng/mL and prostate volume ≤30 mL for both definitions at 4-year follow-up [Stuttgart: 79 (72-86)% vs. 25 (13-38)%; Horwitz: 82 (77-87)% vs. 33 (21-44)%] and [Stuttgart: 72 (64-79)% vs. 56 (42-69)%; Horwitz: 75 (69-80)% vs. 63 (53-74)%], respectively. Pre-treatment PSA and PSA nadir of >0.5 ng/mL were the predictors of BCF using both definitions. CONCLUSIONS: Primary HIFU appears to result in promising 4-year BCF-free rates in individuals with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer who achieve PSA nadir <0.5 ng/mL. A prostate volume <30 mL is associated with PSA nadir levels of <0.5 ng/mL suggesting a potential role for pretreatment volume reduction (medically or surgically) in larger prostates.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations29
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207