Focal Therapy in Prostate Cancer—Report from a Consensus Panel
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To establish a consensus in relation to case selection, conduct of therapy, and outcomes that are associated with focal therapy for men with localized prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Urologic surgeons, radiation oncologists, radiologists, and histopathologists from North America and Europe participated in a consensus workshop on focal therapy for prostate cancer. The consensus process was face to face within a structured meeting, in which pertinent clinical issues were raised, discussed, and agreement sought. Where no agreement was possible, this was acknowledged, and the nature of the disagreement noted. RESULTS: Candidates for focal treatment should have unilateral low- to intermediate-risk disease with clinical stage <or=cT(2a). Prostate size and both tumor volume and tumor topography are important case selection criteria that depend on the ablative technology used. Currently, the best method to ascertain the key characteristics for men who are considering focal therapy is exposure to transperineal template mapping biopsies. MRI of the prostate using novel techniques such as dynamic contrast enhancement and diffusion weighed imaging are increasingly being used to diagnose and stage primary prostate cancer with excellent results. For general use, however, these new techniques require validation in prospective clinical trials. Until such are performed, MRI will, in most centers, continue to be an investigative tool in assessing eligibility of patients for focal therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus was derived for most of the key aspects of case selection, conduct of treatment, and outcome measures for men who are undergoing focal therapy for localized prostate cancer. The level of agreement achieved will pave the way for future collaborative trials.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it