MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187815530 · doi:10.1200/jco.2013.31.6_suppl.3

High-risk prostate cancer treated with pelvic radiotherapy and 36 versus 18 months of androgen blockade: Results of a phase III randomized study.

2013· article· en· W2187815530 on OpenAlexaff
Abdenour Nabid, Nathalie Carrier, André‐Guy Martin, Jean-Paul Bahary, Luís Souhami, Marie Duclos, F. Vincent, Sylvie Vass, Boris Bahoric, Robert Archambault, Céline Lemaire

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontJewish General HospitalCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-QuébecMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeMcGill University Health CentreCentre de Santé et de Services Sociaux de ChicoutimiCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerGoserelinUrologyClinical endpointHazard ratioRandomized controlled trialBicalutamideProstateRadiation therapyCancerProportional hazards modelInternal medicineSurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3 Background: Radiotherapy (RT) and long term androgen blockade (AB) is standard treatment for patients with high risk prostate cancer. However, the optimal duration of AB is not yet defined. The purpose of this randomized study was to compare outcomes between 36 vs. 18 months of AB in high risk prostate cancer treated with RT (PCS IV trial, Clinical Trials.gov, #NCT00223171). Methods: PCS IV randomized patients with node negative high risk prostate cancer (T3-4, PSA >20 ng/ml or Gleason score >7), to pelvic RT (whole pelvis 44 Gy/4 ½ weeks, prostate 70 Gy/7 weeks) and 36 (arm 1) vs. 18 months (arm 2) of AB (neo adjuvant, concomitant, adjuvant). AB consisted of bicalutamide 50 mg for one month plus goserelin 10.8 mg every three months for 36 vs. 18 months. Overall survival was the primary end point. Overall and cancer specific survival rates were compared between arms with Kaplan-Meier log rank test and Cox regression. Results: From October 2000 to January 2008, 310 patients were randomized to arm 1 and 320 to arm 2. Patients’ characteristics were well balanced between the two arms (median age 71 years, median PSA 16 ng/ml, median Gleason score 8). Most patients had T2-3 disease. At a median follow-up of 77 months, 71/310 patients (22.9%) in arm 1 and 76/320 (23.8%) in arm 2 had died (p=0.802). Overall, 116 patients died of causes other than prostate cancer. Overall and cancer specific survival hazard ratios were 1.15 (0.83-1.59), p=0.398 and 1.13 (0.61-2.08), p=0.153, respectively. 5 year overall and disease specific survival rates were 92.1% (89.1-95.1) vs. 86.8% (83.0-90.6), p=0.052 and 97.6% (95.9-99.4) vs. 96.4% (94.2-98.6), p=0.473 and 10 year overall and disease specific survival rates were 63.6% (55.7-71.5) vs. 63.2% (54.7-71.7), p=0.429 and 87.2% (81.0-93.3) vs. 87.2% (80.9-93.6), p=0.838 for arm 1 and arm 2, respectively. There were no significant differences in the rates of biochemical, regional or distant failure between arms. Conclusions: Our study shows that long term AB can be safely reduced from 36 to 18 months without compromising outcomes. Analysis of treatment impact on quality of life is now under review. Source of Funding: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals Grant. Clinical trial information: Clinical Trials.gov, #NCT00223171.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations32
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207