MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Treating intermediate-risk prostate cancer with hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy alone.

2011· article· en· W2560712876 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alan Dal Pra, Sergio Faria, Fabio Cury, Marc David, Marie Duclos, George Shenouda, Luís Souhami

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerExternal beam radiotherapyProstateUrologyAndrogen deprivation therapyRadiation therapyCancerStage (stratigraphy)SurgeryInternal medicineNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

93 Background: A wide range of therapeutic alternatives is available for the treatment of intermediate-risk prostate cancer (IRPC). The use of hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy (HypoRT) in this group of patients appears to be an attractive option. Non-randomized institutional results have provided similar outcomes to conventional fractionation. For health-systems such as we have in Canada, where many patients live far, it significantly shortens treatment duration and impacts favorably in health costs. We report our results using HypoRT alone in IRPC. Methods: Between October/2002 and July/2009, 82 men with IRPC (T2b-T2c, or PSA 10–20 ng/dL, or GS=7) were treated with HypoRT, without any androgen deprivation. Ultrasound image guidance was used daily to confirm setup. The dose was 66 Gy in 22 daily fractions of 3 Gy (BED=79.4Gy/44) prescribed at the isocenter. PTV was the prostate (+/− 1cm seminal vesicles) with 7-mm margin in all directions. GI and GU toxicity were prospectively assessed every 4–6 months using the CTCAE v3 scoring system. Biochemical failure was defined as nadir PSA + 2 ng/dL. Results: 60% of patients had Gleason score 7; 43% had stage T2; median initial PSA=9 ng/ml; median age 71 years. With a median follow-up of 43 months (range: 7–89), only three patients (4%) have developed biochemical failure. All three showed metastatic disease few months after biochemical failure. Actuarial biochemical recurrence free survival (bNED) is 95.4%. There was no death related to prostate cancer. Three patients died from other causes without biochemical failure. The 5-year overall survival was 93%. At the last follow up visit, grade ≥ 2 late GI and GU toxicity rates were 2% and 7%, respectively. No grade 4 or 5 has occurred. Conclusions: Men with IRPC treated with 66Gy/22 fractions and without androgen deprivation have experienced excellent 5-year biochemical control rate with acceptable late toxicity. This regimen is very convenient because the duration of the treatment is half of the time used with conventional fractionation. Whether the addition of short-term androgen deprivation would further improve outcome remains unclear. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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