MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Early salvage versus adjuvant post-prostatectomy radiation therapy: Long-term results of a large institutional experience.

2016· article· en· W2589353141 on OpenAlexaff
Daniela L. Buscariollo, Michael Drumm, Rebecca Claymann, Danielle Rodin, S. Galland-Girodet, Adam S. Feldman, Douglas M. Dahl, Francis J. McGovern, Aria F. Olumi, Alec Eidelman, Andrzej Niemierko, William U. Shipley, Anthony L. Zietman, Jason A. Efstathiou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstatectomyAndrogen deprivation therapySalvage therapyAdverse effectProstate cancerRetrospective cohort studyRadiation therapySurgeryUrologyCancerInternal medicineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

99 Background: Randomized trials and consensus statements support consideration of adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) after radical prostatectomy (RP) for adverse pathologic features (pT3, positive margins), although its use remains low. Whether early salvage radiation therapy (ESRT) is as effective as ART remains unknown. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes after ART and ESRT. Methods: We performed a retrospective institutional analysis of 719 consecutive patients receiving post-RP RT from 1992 to 2013. ESRT was defined as RT for biochemical failure (BF) with post-RP PSA ≤ 0.5 ng/ml. All included ART and ESRT patients had adverse surgical pathologic features. Outcomes examined were freedom from BF (FFBF; rising PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/ml with subsequent confirmation), freedom from subsequent androgen deprivation therapy (FFADT), freedom from distant metastases (FFDM), and overall survival (OS). ART and ESRT were compared using multivariable analyses (MVA) with propensity score (PS) matching for pre-RP PSA, age at RT, Gleason score, pT-stage, and margin status. Results: 537 patients received salvage RT, of whom 195 received ESRT; 181 patients received ART. Median follow-up from RP was 7.0 and 8.1 years in the ART and ESRT cohorts, respectively. Median time to BF after RT was 4.4 and 4.7 years in the ART and ESRT cohorts, respectively. On MVA, ART was associated with improved 10-year FFBF (74 vs 60%, HR 0.36 [95% CI: 0.23-0.58], P < 0.0001) and 10-yr FFADT (91 vs 83%, HR 0.37 [95% CI: 0.18-0.76], P = 0.007). There were no significant differences in FFDM (96 vs 92%, HR 0.58 [95% CI: 0.19-1.7], P = 0.3), and OS (98 vs 95%, HR 1.24 [95% CI: 0.4-3.89], P = 0.7). After PS matching, ART (n = 169) remained significantly associated with improved FFBF (p < 0.0001) and FFADT (p = 0.01), compared to ESRT (n = 176). Conclusions: Post-prostatectomy RT confers excellent long-term prostate cancer control, a finding supported by the long follow-up in this series. ART is associated with improved FFBF and FFADT compared to ESRT, although there were no statistically significant differences in FFDM and OS. Optimal timing of postoperative RT further awaits the results of ongoing randomized trials.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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