MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148772838 · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.438

353 TESTOSTERONE BREAKTHROUGH ON LUTEINIZING HORMONE-RELEASING HORMONE AGONISTS: THE SIZE OF THE PROBLEM AND PREDISPOSING FACTORS

2011· article· en· W2148772838 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tom Pickles, Scott Tyldesley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLuteinizing hormoneTestosterone (patch)HormonePopulationIncidence (geometry)Internal medicineHormone therapyEndocrinologyCancerBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized1 Apr 2011353 TESTOSTERONE BREAKTHROUGH ON LUTEINIZING HORMONE-RELEASING HORMONE AGONISTS: THE SIZE OF THE PROBLEM AND PREDISPOSING FACTORS Tom Pickles and Scott Tyldesley Tom PicklesTom Pickles Vancouver, Canada More articles by this author and Scott TyldesleyScott Tyldesley Vancouver, Canada More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.438AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES To describe, in a large population database, the comprehensiveness of testosterone (TT) suppression while on Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone (LHRH) agonists. To describe the incidence of breakthrough above conventional castrate levels: 50ng/dl, 32ng/dl, 20ng/dl. To identify predisposing factors. METHODS From 11,752 consecutive patients treated with curative radiation therapy 1998–2007, 2290 met the following criteria: continuous LHRH therapy, TT monitoring, at least 3 months of ADT, no more than 12 months neoadjuvant ADT. Prescribing records, TT measures and patient demographic information were extracted from Provincial databases. Frequency of breakthrough above conventional castrate levels (as defined above, a priori) were calculated and related to patient and pharmacologic factors. RESULTS The median duration of LHRH was 11.3 months and a mean of 5.5 injections were administered. The risk of breakthrough per LHRH injection is 18.9% ≥20ng/dl, 4.2% ≥ 32ng/dl, and 2.2% ≥ 50ng/dl. Per patient course of ADT, the breakthrough risk was higher: 26.8% ≥20ng/dl, 6.6%≥ 32ng/dl and 3.3% ≥50ng/dl. Predisposing factors are younger age, p<0.001 and higher body mass index, p=0.008, but not pre-treatment testosterone, p=0.4. Age and BMI are correlated (younger men being thinner, p<0.001) and BMI with pre-treatment TT (obese men having lower TT levels, p<0.001). Logistic regression was carried out: Young age and high BMI were highly associated with the risk of a breakthrough (p<0.001 and p=0.01 respectively, see figure) and high pre-treatment TT weakly so (p=0.052). Differences in breakthrough rate according to the LHRH preparation used were observed, but were not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS Breakthroughs of TT after LHRH are common, 3–27% depending on definition. They are commoner in the young and obese. Monitoring of TT is required. © 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 185Issue 4SApril 2011Page: e143-e144 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Tom Pickles Vancouver, Canada More articles by this author Scott Tyldesley Vancouver, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207