MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Utilization of local salvage therapy after primary radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

2013· article· en· W2590933795 on OpenAlexaff
Henry Tran, Jaime Kwok, Tom Pickles, Scott Tyldesley, Peter C. Black

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyProstate cancerProstatectomyBiochemical recurrenceSalvage therapyBrachytherapyCryotherapyCancerAndrogen deprivation therapySurgeryInternal medicineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

231 Background: Early biochemical detection and subsequent slow progression of recurrent prostate cancer after primary radiotherapy permit the delivery of potentially curative local salvage therapy (LST). Several LST options are available, including cryotherapy, brachytherapy (BT), and radical prostatectomy (RP). We studied the rates at which patients are offered, and receive LST after failure of primary radiotherapy. Methods: Patients with localized prostate cancer who received primary radiotherapy with curative intent between 1999-2000 were identified in the British Columbia radiotherapy database. Data on clinicopathologic features, primary therapy, PSA kinetics, and salvage therapy were collected retrospectively. We excluded patients with T4 tumors, PSA >40, or age >72 years at time of primary therapy. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined by the Phoenix criteria. Patients were also deemed radiation failures if salvage therapy was started without meeting criteria for BCR. Results: Out of 1785 patients treated with radiation, 1067 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 257 experienced BCR. Five patients received LST (3 RP, 2 BT). LST was considered in 11 other patients, but 2 were not referred for urologic opinion, and 9 declined intervention. 60 patients were considered ineligible for LST: 43 due to suspected metastasis and 17 due to other comorbidities. LST was unlikely to be offered to 80 patients due to age >75 at time of BCR. 59 additional patients appeared to be eligible for LST but there was no evidence that it was considered in the medical record. ADT was started within 12 months of BCR in 118 patients, and after at least one year of observation in another 66. Conclusions: Few patients were considered for LST in the study period, and only 5 received it. This review of practice patterns reveals a lack of uniform monitoring and treatment strategies in this challenging patient population, and indicates a need for more collaboration between all treating physicians, as well as with tertiary care centers.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0040.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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