Does transperitoneal minimally invasive radical prostatectomy increase the amount of small bowel receiving salvage radiation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Transperitoneal minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) has become first choice for several urologists and patients dealing with localized prostate cancer. We evaluate the effect of postoperative radiation on the small bowel in patients who underwent extraperitoneal open versus transperitoneal MIRP. METHODS: We reviewed all patients who received postoperative radiation from 2006 to 2010. Planning target volume (PTV) and surrounding organs, including the small bowel, were delineated. The presence of the small bowel in PTV and its volume in receiving each dose level were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients were included: 26 underwent MIRP and 96 underwent open prostatectomy. The median age of patients was 66 years, with median body mass index 27 kg/m(2). The total PTV dose was 66 Gy, with the minimum and maximum doses received by the small bowel 0.4 and 66.4 Gy, respectively. The maximum volume of small bowel that received the safe limit of 40 Gy was 569 cm(3). Of the 26 patients who underwent MIRP, 12 (46%) had small bowel identified inside the PTV compared to 57 (59%) among patients who underwent open prostatectomy (p = 0.228). The mean volume of the small bowel receiving 40 Gy was 26 and 67 cm(3) in open and MIRP groups, respectively (p = 0.006); the incidence of acute complications was the same in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Higher volumes of the small bowel are subjected to significant radiation after MIRP procedures compared to open procedures; however, we could not demonstrate any impact on acute complications. Whether there is a difference in late complications remains to be evaluated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".