MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A randomized trial of a shorter radiation fractionation schedule for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.

2016· article· en· W2526220138 on OpenAlexaffabout
Charles Catton, Himu Lukka, Jim A. Julian, Chu‐Shu Gu, Jarad Martin, S. Supiot, Peter Chung, Glenn Bauman, Jean-Paul Bahary, Shahida Ahmed, Patrick Cheung, Keen Hun Tai, Jackson Wu, Matthew Parliament, Mark N. Levine

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsBaker Hughes (Canada)Hôpital Notre-DameCancer Care OntarioMcMaster UniversityHealth Sciences CentreCancerCare ManitobaOntario Clinical Oncology GroupSunnybrook Health Science CentreJuravinski Cancer CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerUrologyProstateRadiation therapyRegimenHazard ratioRandomized controlled trialHormonal therapyDose fractionationNuclear medicineCancerInternal medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5003 Background: Men with localized prostate cancer (PC) are often treated with high dose radiotherapy (RT) over 8-9 weeks. The α-β ratio which describes the dose-response of tumors and normal tissues to fractionated RT is low for PC. Hence, hypofractionation RT may be more efficacious in PC. Objective:To determine whether an 8-week course of escalated dose conformal RT can be compressed safely, and with similar efficacy into a 4-week course in intermediate risk PC. Methods: Men with intermediate risk PC (T1-2 Gleason 6 and PSA 10-20 ng/ml or T2b-c Gleason 6 and PSA < 20 ng/ml or T1-2 Gleason 7 and PSA < 20 ng/ml) were randomized to conventional (CON) RT, 78Gy in 39 fractions over 8 weeks or hypofractionated (HYP) RT, 60Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks, without hormone therapy. RT was planned to respect predefined dose constraints to a risk-adapted volume that included prostate +/- base of seminal vesicles. Daily image guidance was mandated and RT plans underwent real-time central review. The primary outcome is biochemical-clinical failure (BCF) defined by any of: PSA failure (nadir+2), hormonal intervention, clinical local or distant failure, or death. The trial was designed to show that the 5-year BCF of the HYP RT regimen is no higher than CON RT by up to 7.5% (hazard ratio [HR] up to 1.32) with 85% power and one-sided α = 5%. Acute and late GU/GI toxicity were assessed using RTOG criteria. Results:Between 2006 and 2011, 1,206 men from 27 sites in Canada, Australia and France were allocated to HYP RT (608) or CON RT (598). Mean age was 71 (48-88) years. Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. Median follow-up is 6.0 years. To date, 164 patients receiving HYP RT experienced a BCF event compared to 173 in the CON RT group. The BCF event rate at 5 years in both arms was 21%. The observed HR is 0.96 with 90% CI, 0.80 to 1.15. Overall 75 patients have died in each group. GU/GI toxicity grade > 3 was comparable in the acute period; however, late toxicity favored the HYPO RT arm: 3.5% vs. 5.4%, diff = -1.9%, 95% CI, - 4.3 to 0.43%. Conclusion: The HYP RT regimenwas not inferior to conventional RT with no increase in acute or late toxicity. Thus, it is a consideration for men with intermediate risk PC. Clinical trial information: NCT00304759.

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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.373 · 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

Citations38
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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