MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

5α-reductase inhibitors and the risk of grade reclassification for men with long-term follow-up on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

2016· article· en· W2413116512 on OpenAlexaff
Antonio Finelli, Narhari Timilshina, Maria Komisarenko, Robert J. Sowerby, Robert J. Hamilton, Alexandre R. Zlotta, Neil Fleshner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreBrampton Civic HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerProportional hazards modelHazard ratioInternal medicineCohortProstateRetrospective cohort studyOncologyCancerCohort studyUrologyGynecologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

92 Background: The role of 5α-reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) in prostatic diseases remains controversial because of an FDA black box label. We have previously published on the impact of 5-ARIs in men managed with active surveillance (AS), demonstrating their protective effect against progression. However, the long-term safety of 5-ARIs in the setting of AS has never been described, thus we sought to assess this. Methods: This is a single-institution, prospectively maintained, retrospective cohort study comparing men taking a 5-ARI versus no 5-ARI while on AS for PCa. Pathologic progression was evaluated and defined as Gleason score > 6, maximum core involvement > 50%, or more than 3 cores positive on a follow-up prostate biopsy. Time dependent covariate analysis to account for time on AS but not on 5-ARI was conducted to diminish the likelihood of overestimating the benefit. To account for differences in prostate volume at baseline between 5-ARI and non-5-ARI groups sensitivity analyses were performed, restricting men in the non-5-ARI group to those with larger glands (volume > 40 ml). Kaplan-Meier analyses were conducted along with multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression modeling for predictors of pathologic progression. Results: The original cohort of 288 men on AS were analyzed. The median follow-up was 61.2 months (IQR: 29.8-95.24) with 124 men (43%) experiencing pathologic progression and 119 men (41.3%) abandoning AS. Men taking a 5-ARI experienced a lower rate of pathologic progression (24.3% vs 49.1%; p < 0.001) and were less likely to abandon AS (25.7% vs 46.3%; p = 0.002). On multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, lack of 5-ARI use was most strongly associated with pathologic progression (HR: 2.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-5.02). Sensitivity analyses done to account for gland size demonstrated that lack of 5-ARI use was still predictive of progression (HR: 2.76; CI, 1.45–5.25; p = 0.002). Importantly, 5-ARI use was not associated with increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer. Conclusions: 5-ARIs were associated with a significantly lower rate of pathologic progression and abandonment of AS in men with median follow-up of 5 years.

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)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.359 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→