MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2502183409 · doi:10.1200/jco.2015.33.7_suppl.3

ASCENDE-RT*: A multicenter, randomized trial of dose-escalated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT-B) versus low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-B) for men with unfavorable-risk localized prostate cancer.

2015· article· en· W2502183409 on OpenAlexaff
William Morris, Scott Tyldesley, Howard Pai, Ross Halperin, Michael McKenzie, Graeme Duncan, Gerard Morton, Nevin Murray, Jeremy Hamm

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerBrachytherapyClinical endpointUrologyRandomized controlled trialAndrogen deprivation therapyExternal beam radiotherapyGoserelinInternal medicineRadiation therapyCancerOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3 Background: This trial compared the efficacy of DE-EBRT and LDR-B for National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) high and intermediate-risk disease. Methods: A planned sample size of 400 patients were randomized to one of two treatment arms and stratified by risk group. Both arms received 12 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist plus a non-steroidal anti-androgen for at least 1 month. After 8 months of neo-adjuvant ADT, both arms received whole pelvis EBRT (46Gy/23#). Patients assigned to DE-EBRT (standard arm) then received a conformal EBRT boost (32Gy/16#). Patients assigned to LDR-B (experimental arm) received an Iodine-125 LDR boost prescribed to a minimum peripheral dose of 115Gy. The primary endpoint was relapse free survival (RFS) defined by biochemical criteria using the nadir+2 ng/mL threshold. Time zero was the date of the first LHRH injection. Results: Between Dec 2002 and Sep 2011, 276 high-risk and 122 intermediate-risk patients were accrued at 6 cancer treatment centers. 200 men were assigned to DE-EBRT and 198 to LDR-B. The treatment arms were well balanced in terms of age and known prognostic factors. Median follow up (FU) is 6.5 years; 65 men have >9 years FU. There were 12 major protocol violations in each arm. By intent-to-treat analysis, the 3-, 5-, 7-, and 9-year Kaplan-Meier RFS estimates are 94% vs 94%, 77% vs 89%, 71% vs 86%, and 63% vs 83% for DE-EBRT and LDR-B respectively (hazard ratio = 0.473; 95% CI 0.292 – 0.765; P = 0.0022). Randomization (p<0.001), percent positive cores (p=0.005), initial PSA (p=0.006) and clinical T-stage (p=0.013) were predictive of RFS in a multivariable Cox model. The median PSA at latest FU for non-relapsing patients assigned to LDR-B is 0.02 vs 0.24 ng/mL for DE-EBRT. Conclusions: In a randomized trial, an Iodine-125 LDR boost was much more effective than an EBRT boost in rendering unfavorable-risk prostate cancer patients biochemically disease free. *ASCENDE-RT- Androgen Suppression Combined with Elective Nodal and Dose Escalated Radiation Therapy is an NCI registered trial (NCT00175396). Clinical trial information: NCT00175396.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Citations96
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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