High-risk prostate cancer treated with pelvic radiotherapy and 36 versus 18 months of androgen blockade: Results of a phase III randomized study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".