MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Dose escalation of five-fraction SABR for prostate cancer: Biochemical outcome and toxicity comparison of two prospective trials.

2015· article· en· W2589343245 on OpenAlexaff
Hima Bindu Musunuru, Harvey Quon, Liying Zhang, Patrick Cheung, Colin Tang, Geordi Pang, Alexandre Mamedov, Laura D’Alimonte, Andrea Deabreu, D. Andrew Loblaw

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerSABR volatility modelUrologyRadiation therapyProstateToxicityNuclear medicineCancerInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

224 Background: To compare the biochemical outcomes and toxicities of two different 5 fraction stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) schedules for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Methods: Two sequential phase I/II studies of 5-fraction SABR for the treatment of low and intermediate risk (LR and IR) prostate cancer have been conducted. In the first trial, 84 LR patients(pts) received 35 Gy in 5 fractions, once per week over 29 days (Group 1). In the second trial, 30 pts (18 LR, 11 IR) received 40 Gy in 5 fractions, once per week over 29 days (Group 2). Treatment was delivered to the prostate with intensity modulated radiotherapy using daily image guidance and a 4mm (Group 1) or 5 mm (Group 2) CTV-PTV margin. PSA nadir and bRFS(nadir+2 definition) were compared between the two groups. Acute (CTCv3.0), late (RTOG) and cumulative toxicity for late grade ≥ 2 GU/GI toxicities were also compared. Results: Median follow up was 74 (IQR 67-81) and 36 (IQR 32-39) months. Median PSA nadir was 0.4 ng/ml and 0.3 ng/ml. Time to PSA nadir was 54 and 32.5 months. 44.0% in group 1 and 30% in Group 2 experienced benign PSA bounce. There were 3 and 0 PSA failures in Groups 1 and 2. 2-, 4- and 6-year bRFS was 100%, 98.7% and 95.9% and 100%, 100% and not reached in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p=0.91). The only acute grade 3 toxicity was noticed in Group 1 (1 pt, GU). Late grade 4 GI toxicity was noted in Group 1 (1 pt, GI, fistula). Up to 4 years of follow-up, Group 2 pts have had a greater percentage of grade 2+ cumulative GU (5.0% vs 24.2%) and GI (7.6% vs 26.2%) toxicities. Conclusions: Pts receiving a dose escalated SABR had slightly lower PSA nadir and similar bRFS - longer follow up is needed to better estimate biochemical outcomes in Group 2. There seemed to be a greater risk of grade 2 toxicities in the higher dose cohort but grade 3+ toxicities were not increased. Quality of life analyses will be presented separately. Clinical trial information: NCT01578902 , NCT01146340 .[Table: see text]

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.373
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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