MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097563063 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.540

Clinical significance of suboptimal hormonal levels in men with prostate cancer treated with LHRH agonists

2013· article· en· W2097563063 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Jun Kawakami, Álvaro Morales

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersAbbott Canada
KeywordsMedicineTestosterone (patch)Luteinizing hormoneGoserelinProstate cancerBuserelinHormoneInternal medicineEndocrinologyFollicle-stimulating hormonePopulationProstate-specific antigenUrologyCancerAgonistReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: We examined the serum levels of testosterone (T) (total and bioavailable) dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in men receiving treatment with luteinizing hormone releasing-hormone (LHRH) agonists for metastatic prostate cancer. In doing this, we want to determine the efficacy of these agents in lowering T levels and whether a possible relationship exists between PSA values, as a surrogate measure of tumour activity, and hormone levels. METHODS: This was a single centre prospective study of patients on LHRH agonists. Of all the 100 eligible patients, 31 did not qualify (10 were receiving their first injection, 13 were on intermittent hormonal therapy, 7 refused to enter the trial and 1 patient's blood sample was lost). Therefore in total, 69 patients were included in the final analysis. Each patient had their blood sample drawn immediately before the administration of a LHRH agonist. The new proposed criteria of <20 ng/dL (0.69 nmol/L) of total testosterone was used to define optimal levels of the hormone in this population. RESULTS: Of the 69 patients, 41 were on goserelin injections, 21 on leuprolide, and 7 on buserelin. There was no statistical difference in hormone levels between any of the medications. Overall, 21% of patients failed to reach optimal levels of total testosterone. PSA levels were higher in this group. There was a statistically significant correlation between PSA and testosterone levels, as well as between PSA and FSH. Serum levels of PSA, however, did not correlate with those of bioavailable testosterone. CONCLUSIONS: Failure to reach optimal levels of testosterone occurs in patients on LHRH agonist therapy. Higher PSA values are more commonly found in patients with suboptimal levels of testosterone receiving LHRH analogs, but the clinical importance of this finding has not been established. There is no significant difference with respect to hormonal levels reached among patients on a variety of LHRH agonists. Total testosterone determinations should be considered in patients on LHRH agonist therapy, particularly when the PSA values begin to rise since it may lead to further beneficial hormonal manipulation.

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)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207