MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2339980731

Moderate hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy alone for intermediate risk prostate cancer: long term outcomes.

2016· article· en· W2339980731 on OpenAlexaff
Sergio Faria, Osmar B Neto, Fabio Cury, George Shenouda, Russel Ruo, Luís Souhami

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerCommon Terminology Criteria for Adverse EventsRadiation therapyProstateIsocenterUrologyExternal beam radiotherapyToxicityInternal medicineOncologyCancerSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: To report long term toxicity and efficacy of patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer treated with moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy (HypoRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied the first consecutive 100 men with intermediate risk (stage T2b-T2c, or PSA = 10-20 ug/L, or Gleason score = 7) adenocarcinoma of the prostate treated between October 2002 and May 2010 in our institution with moderate HypoRT. Patients were treated using three-dimensional conformal HypoRT to a dose of 66 Gy in 22 daily fractions prescribed to the isocenter. Androgen suppression was not given to any patient. A uniform 7 mm margin was created around the prostate for the planning target volume. Daily ultrasound was used to guide the radiotherapy. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0, was used to prospectively score toxicity. Biochemical failure was defined as the nadir PSA level plus 2 ng/m. RESULTS: After a median follow up time of 80 months (range: 7-152), the 8 year actuarial freedom from biochemical relapse survival rate was 90%. The 8 year cancer specific survival and overall survival rates were 96% and 84%, respectively. Only 2 patients died from prostate cancer. The worst grade ≥ 2 late genitourinary (GU) or gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities ever documented were 19% and 20%, respectively. At the last follow up the incidence of grade ≥ 2 late GI or GU toxicity was of only 2% and 3%, respectively. No grade 4 or 5 late toxicity was seen. CONCLUSION: Our long term experience with HypoRT delivering 66 Gy/22 fractions prescribed to the isocenter using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy shows excellent tumor control with acceptable toxicity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→