American Society of Clinical Oncology Endorsement of the Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guideline on Nonhormonal Therapy for Men With Metastatic Hormone-Refractory (castration-resistant) Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE In 2006, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Board of Directors (BOD) approved a policy and a set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS The Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) Guideline on Non-Hormonal Therapy for Men With Metastatic Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer (HRPC) was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ad hoc prostate cancer guideline review panel consisting of prostate cancer experts reviewed the content. Results The ASCO ad hoc prostate cancer guideline review panel concurred that the recommendations are clear, thorough, based on the most relevant scientific evidence in this content area, and present options that will be acceptable to patients. The CCO guideline was subsequently endorsed by the ASCO BOD. The guideline recommends the use of docetaxel, prednisone/hydrocortisone, and/or mitoxantrone in specific settings. Docetaxel-based chemotherapy is the only treatment that has demonstrated an overall survival benefit in men with HRPC. The use of estramustine in combination with other cytotoxic agents is not recommended. Continued gonadal androgen suppression and discontinuance of antiandrogens is recommended for men receiving chemotherapy. CONCLUSION The review panel agreed with the recommendations as stated in the CCO guideline, with the following qualifications: two of the ASCO content reviewers noted the importance of considering other, nonhormonal therapies in this context that are beyond the scope of this guideline. The review panel notes that CCO has published separate guidelines on radiopharmaceuticals and bisphosphonates in men with castration-resistant (ie, hormone-refractory) metastatic prostate cancer.
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 | 0.017 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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".