MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Early toxicity in a randomized trial of high dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy as monotherapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

2016· article· en· W2590540865 on OpenAlexaff
Gerard Morton, Hans T. Chung, Merrylee McGuffin, Liying Zhang, Ananth Ravi, Laura D’Alimonte, Andrew Loblaw

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerBrachytherapyRandomized controlled trialProstateAndrogen deprivation therapyUrologyToxicityInternational Prostate Symptom ScoreRadiation therapySurgeryInternal medicineLower urinary tract symptomsCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

44 Background: Evidence supports the use of high dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR) as monotherapy for selected patients with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer when given in schedules of 4 or more fractions. There is limited data on the safety and efficacy of HDR given in fewer fractions. Our purpose is to report on acute toxicity (within 3 months) and early changes in health-related quality of life in a randomized trial comparing a single fraction and a 2-fraction protocol. Methods: A single center, randomized phase II clinical trial of HDR either as a single fraction of 19 Gy (1F), or as two fractions of 13.5 Gy (2F) given 1 week apart was undertaken between June 2013 and April 2015. Eligible patients had NCCN low- or intermediate-risk disease, a prostate volume < 60 cc, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of 18 or lower, no previous prostate surgery and no use of androgen deprivation therapy. Treatment was delivered using an out-patient ultrasound-based technique. Follow-up assessment was with CTCAE v4, IPSS and Expanded Prostate Composite Index (EPIC). Results: A total of 168 patients were randomized: 86 to 1F and 82 to 2F arms. Median age was 65 years, median prostate volume was 35 cc, and 91% had intermediate risk. Median follow-up was 12 months. Only 3 patients (1.8%) experienced acute grade 2 GI toxicity. The percentage of acute grade 2 GU toxicities is as follows: retention (48%), frequency (20%), urgency (4%). One patient experienced grade 3 hematuria. Ten patients (6%) had urinary retention but only 4 (2.5%) required use of a catheter for longer than 2 days. There was no difference in rate of grade 2 toxicity between treatment arms; the only factor associated with grade 2 urinary retention on univariate and multivariate analysis was prostate volume (p=0.0033). Mean EPIC urinary (p=0.0016) and sexual domain scores (p<0.0001) were lower at 6 months with no difference between treatment arms. Bowel and hormonal domain scores were unchanged. Conclusions: HDR 19 Gy x 1 or 13.5 Gy x 2 is very well tolerated acutely with no acute bowel toxicity. Mild to moderate acute urinary symptoms are common. No difference is found in acute toxicity or early health-related quality of life between treatments. Clinical trial information: NCT01890096.

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)0.004
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.384 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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