Long-Term Disease-Specific Functioning Among Prostate Cancer Survivors and Noncancer Controls in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Within the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO), we assessed the long-term disease-specific functioning among prostate cancer (PCa) survivors versus noncancer controls, the impact of trial arm (screening/usual care) on functioning, and the effect of treatment modality on functioning. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PCa survivors (n = 529), 5 to 10 years postdiagnosis, were frequency-matched to noncancer controls (n = 514) for race, screening center, year of enrollment, and trial arm. Participants completed a telephone interview regarding PCa-specific symptomatology. Weights accounted for patient selection from the five PLCO screening centers. Propensity-score methods were used to balance groups of interest with respect to demographic and medical characteristics. RESULTS: Weighted linear regression analyses revealed poorer sexual and urinary function among PCa survivors compared with noncancer controls (P < .001). Trial arm was not significantly related to any outcome (P > .31). Compared with radical prostatectomy patients (n = 201), radiation-therapy patients (n = 110) reported better sexual (P < .05) and urinary (P < .001) functioning but poorer bowel outcomes (P < .05). Survivors who received treatment combinations including androgen deprivation (n = 207) reported significantly poorer hormone-related symptoms compared with radical prostatectomy patients (P < .05). CONCLUSION This study demonstrated the persistence of clinically significant, long-term PCa treatment-related sexual and urinary adverse effects up to 10 years postdiagnosis. To our knowledge, this was the first comparison of prostate-related dysfunction among screened survivors versus screened noncancer controls and indicated that these long-term problems were attributable to PCa treatment and not to aging or comorbidities. Finally, differences in long-term adverse effects between treatment modalities are particularly relevant for patients and clinicians when making treatment decisions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".