MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Predictive parameters of symptomatic haematochezia following 5-fraction gantry-based SABR in prostate cancer.

2016· article· en· W2590008492 on OpenAlexaff
Hima Bindu Musunuru, Melanie Davidson, Patrick Cheung, William Chu, Hans T. Chung, Danny Vesprini, Stanley K. Liu, Alexandre Mamedov, Ananth Ravi, Laura D’Alimonte, Kristina Commissso, Joelle Helou, Andrea Deabreu, Liying Zhang, Andrew Loblaw

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSABR volatility modelProstate cancerProstateNuclear medicineRadiation therapyUnivariate analysisProspective cohort studyInternal medicineUrologyMultivariate analysisSurgeryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

79 Background: To identify clinical and dosimetric predictors of high-grade haematochezia (HH) following 5-fraction gantry based stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). Methods: Data about haematochezia in 258 patients who received 35-40Gy SABR in 5-fractions (weekly or alternate days) as part of sequential phase II prospective trials was retrieved. Haematochezia was graded as per the Fox Chase LENT criteria, ≥ grade 2 rectal bleeding was labeled as HH. Patients needing steroid suppositories, 4% formalin or 1-2 sessions of argon plasma coagulation (APC) were graded as grade 2 haematochezia. If a patient required >2 sessions of APC, blood transfusion or a course of hyperbaric oxygen, this was grade 3 and development of visceral fistula was grade 4. Various dosimetric and clinical factors were analyzed using univariate and multivariate (MVA) analyses. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) were used to determine clinically valid cut-off points and risk groups, respectively. Results: Median follow-up was 29.7 months (IQR 20.6, 61.7). HH was observed in 19.4%. Median time to develop HH was 11.7 months (IQR 9.0, 15.2). Resolution occurred a median of 6.7 months (IQR 5.7, 12.4) later; 3% was prevalent at last follow-up. At two years, cumulative HH was 4.9%, 27.2% and 42.1% in patients who received 35Gy to prostate (4mm planning target volume-PTV margin), 40Gy to prostate (5mm PTV margin) and 40Gy to prostate/seminal vesicles (5mm PTV margin), respectively ( p-value< 0.0001). In the ROC analysis, volume of rectum receiving radiation dose of 38Gy (V38) was a strong predictor of HH with an AUC of 0.65. In MVA, rectal V38 (≥2.0cc; p-value<0.0001, OR 4.9); use of anti-coagulants (p-value<0.0002, OR 14.9) and presence of hemorrhoids (p-value<0.006, OR 3.2) were the strongest predictors. In RPA, rectal V38<2.0cc and use of anticoagulants orrectal V38 ≥2.0cc plus one other risk factor resulted in a HH risk>30%. Conclusions: Rectal V38 and two clinical factors were strong predictors of high-grade haematochezia following 5-fraction SABR. Planning constraints should aim to keep the rectal V38 below 2.0cc.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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