Adjuvant and Salvage Radiotherapy After Prostatectomy: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To endorse the American Urological Association (AUA)/American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) guideline on adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines developed by other professional organizations. METHODS: The guideline on adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ASCO endorsement panel then reviewed the content and recommendations. RESULTS: The panel determined that the guideline recommendations on adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy, published in August 2013, are clear, thorough, and based on the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO endorsed the guideline on adjuvant and salvage radiotherapy after prostatectomy, adding one qualifying statement that not all candidates for adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy have the same risk of recurrence or disease progression, and thus, risk-benefit ratios are not the same for all men. Those at the highest risk for recurrence after radical prostatectomy include men with seminal vesicle invasion, Gleason score 8 to 10, extensive positive margins, and detectable postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA). RECOMMENDATIONS: Physicians should discuss adjuvant radiotherapy with patients with adverse pathologic findings at prostatectomy (ie, seminal vesicle invasion, positive surgical margins, extraprostatic extension) and salvage radiotherapy with patients with PSA or local recurrence after prostatectomy. The discussion of radiotherapy should include possible short- and long-term adverse effects and potential benefits. The decision to administer radiotherapy should be made by the patient and multidisciplinary treatment team, keeping in mind that not all men are at equal risk of recurrence or clinically meaningful disease progression. Thus, the risk-benefit ratio will differ for each patient.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".