MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) as salvage therapy for radio-recurrent prostate cancer: Predictors of disease response.

2016· article· en· W2590760113 on OpenAlexaff
Shawn Dason, Christopher B. Allard, Jen Hoogenes, William Orovan, Bobby Shayegan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerClinical endpointHigh-intensity focused ultrasoundProstateBiochemical recurrenceProstate-specific antigenBiopsySalvage therapyCancerSurgeryUrologyOncologyRadiologyInternal medicineUltrasoundProstatectomyClinical trialChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

135 Background: Some patients with localized radio-recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) may have long-term recurrence-free (RFS) survival with salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). In this study, we describe our previously unreported oncologic outcomes and predictors of disease response after salvage HIFU. Methods: Participants were prospectively enrolled in this study from January 2005 to December 2014 if they had localized radio-recurrent prostate cancer. Participants had to meet both biochemical (PSA nadir+ 2ng/ml) and histologic (positive biopsy) definitions of recurrence. Study exclusion criteria included the receipt of prior salvage therapy, presence of metastastatic disease, and receipt of ADT in the 6-months prior to enrollment. Participants were treated with a single session of whole-gland HIFU ablation with the Ablatherm device (EDAP, France). The primary endpoint of this study was RFS, defined as a composite endpoint of PSA progression (PSA nadir + 2 ng/ml), receipt of any further salvage therapy, receipt of ADT, clinical progression, or death. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to determine the primary end-point and stratifications were used to determine the significance of 6 pre-specified predictors of improved RFS (undetectable PSA nadir, low TRUS biopsy grade, >3 TRUS biopsy cores positive, pre-HIFU PSA<4ng/ml, receipt of prior ADT and presence of pre-HIFU palpable disease). Survival analysis was performed on participants with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Results: Twenty-four participants were eligible for study inclusion with a median follow-up of 31.0 months. Median PSA at study entry was 4.02 ng/ml. Median time to PSA nadir was 3 months after treatment and median post-HIFU PSA nadir was 0.04 ng/ml. 2-year and 5-year RFS were 66.3% and 51.6% respectively. An undetectable PSA nadir was the only significant predictor of improved RFS (HR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02-0.29, log-rank P<0.001). No participants developed a rectourethral fistula. Conclusions: Salvage HIFU allows for disease control in select patients with localized radio-recurrent prostate cancer. An undetectable PSA nadir serves as an early predictor of disease response.

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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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