MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Biochemical, pathologic, toxicity, and quality-of-life outcomes in a five-fraction hypofractionated accelerated radiotherapy treatment using standard linear accelerators and gold seed fiducials.

2012· article· en· W2591535929 on OpenAlexaff
D. Andrew Loblaw, Patrick Cheung, Colin Tang, Harvey Quon, Geordi Pang, Gerard Morton, Alexandre Mamedov, Laura D’Alimonte, Andrea Deabreu, R. Tirona, Suneil Jain

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCancerCare ManitobaHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerRadiation therapyImage-guided radiation therapyCohortProspective cohort studyQuality of life (healthcare)ProstateCancerUrologyNuclear medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

186 Background: Biological dose escalation through hypofractionated image-guided radiotherapy (H-IGRT) holds the promise of improved patient outcomes, system capacity but decreased cost. In 2006 we initiated a prospective trial of H-IGRT of patients with low risk localized prostate cancer. In this report, we report the toxicities, quality of life (QOL), biochemical and pathologic outcomes of this cohort with more mature follow-up. Methods: A phase I/II study in which patients with T1-2b, Gleason≤6, and PSA≤10 ng/ml prostate cancer received 35 Gy in 5 fractions, once a week over 29 days. No patients received hormone therapy. Treatment was delivered with intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) on standard linear accelerators, with daily image guidance using gold seed fiducials, and a 4 mm CTV-PTV margin. CTCAE v3.0 and RTOG late morbidity scores were used to assess acute and late toxicities, respectively. QOL was assessed by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC). Biochemical control (BC) was defined by the Phoenix definition, adjusted for benign bounce. Results: As of September 2011, 83 patients have completed treatment with a median follow-up of 42 months (range 12–60 months). Median age was 67y (42 – 82y). 78 patients (92%) were T1a-c; all had Gleason 6 cancers; median PSA was 5.3 (0.8 – 9.9 ng/ml). 82 (99%) had BC; the remaining patient had a negative biopsy and a history of chronic prostatitis. The median PSA on last visit was 0.69 ng/ml (.02 – 2.6 ng/ml). Of 59 patients who have had a biopsy to date, 2 (3%) were positive but both are under BC. The following toxicities were observed: acute grade 3+: 0% GI, 1% GU, 0% fatigue; late grade 3+: 1% GI, 1% GU. Median transformed QOL scores at baseline (0.5 SD) and 36mo follow-up are: urinary – 95% (4.1), 93%; bowel – 96% (4.8), 96%; sexual – 65% (13.7), 51%; and hormonal – 95% (5.3), 95%. Conclusions: This novel technique employing standard linear accelerators to deliver an extreme hypofractionated schedule of radiotherapy is feasible, well tolerated and shows excellent pathologic and biochemical control. A randomized study versus standard fractionation should be performed.

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)0.001
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.353
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.198 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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