MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2591292174 · doi:10.1200/jco.2014.32.4_suppl.5

Long-term quality of life in high-risk prostate cancer: Results of a phase III randomized trial.

2014· article· en· W2591292174 on OpenAlexaff
Abdenour Nabid, Nathalie Carrier, André‐Guy Martin, Jean-Paul Bahary, Luís Souhami, Marie Duclos, F. Vincent, Sylvie Vass, Boris Bahoric, Robert Archambault, Céline Lemaire

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-QuébecCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeMcGill University Health CentreCentre de Santé et de Services Sociaux de ChicoutimiCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialQuality of life (healthcare)Prostate cancerAndrogen deprivation therapyRadiation therapyRandomizationPhysical therapyHormonal therapyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5 Background: To evaluate long-term quality of life (QOL) in 630 patients with high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC) treated in a prospective randomized phase III trial (PCS IV clinical trials, Gov. # NCT 00223171). Methods: Patients were randomized to radiotherapy (RT) plus 36 or 18 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). QOL was assessed by two validated tools: EORTC30 (30 items) and PR25 (25 items). The 55 items were regrouped into 21 scales: 15 for EORTC30 and six for PR25. All items and scales scores were linearly transformed to a 0 to 100 points scale. A p value less than 0.01 was considered statistically significant and a difference between groups in mean scores of greater than or equal to 10 points as clinically relevant. Patient-reported outcomes were filled out before treatments, every six months during ADT, four months after and then once a year for five years. All items and scales scores were analysed with general linear model with repeated measures to evaluate changes between groups and over time periods. Results: Three hundred ten patients were randomized to 36 months and 320 to 18 months of ADT, with a median follow-up of 79 months, there was no difference in survival outcomes. The global adherence to QOL questionnaires was 72.4% (10,052 out of 13,880). When comparing the two groups, 6 out of 21 scales (physical, emotional, and social functioning, fatigue, hormonal treatment-related symptoms, and sexual active) and 14 out of 55 items (trouble with long walks, stay in bed during the day, weakness, tenseness, worry, irritable, depressed, close to a toilet, blood in stools, hot flushes, enlarged breasts, interested in sex, sexually active, enjoyable sex) were statistically significant (p< 0.01) in favor of the 18 months ADT group. None of the 21 scales reached clinical relevance (mean scores greater than or equal to 10 points) sexual active being the highest score with 9.0 points of difference. For the 14 statistically significant items, interest in sex with 9.9 points and sexually active with 8.1 points were close to clinical relevance and hot flushes with 24 points and enjoyable sex with 18 points had important clinical relevance at 42 months. Conclusions: In HRPC treated with RT and ADT, reducing the duration of ADT from 36 to 18 months improves QOL, without a negative impact on survival. Source of Funding: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals grant. Clinical trial information: PCS IV clinical trials, Gov. # NCT 00223171.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.503
GPT teacher head0.585
Teacher spread0.083 · 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

Citations17
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→