MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Pelvic SABR with HDR boost in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (SPARE): Favorable early toxicity and quality-of-life outcomes.

2017· article· en· W2597667990 on OpenAlexaff
Hima Bindu Musunuru, Andrea Deabreu, Melanie Davidson, Ananth Ravi, Joelle Helou, Ling Ho, Patrick Cheung, Danny Vesprini, Stanley K. Liu, William Chu, Renée Korol, Hans T. Chung, Alexandre Mamedov, Liying Zhang, Andrew Loblaw

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSABR volatility modelCommon Terminology Criteria for Adverse EventsProstate cancerBrachytherapyAndrogen deprivation therapyProstateUrologyRadiation therapyQuality of life (healthcare)Adverse effectSurgeryCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

60 Background: ASCENDE-RT has provided level 1 evidence supporting the use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy boost in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer. The objectives of this study are to report early toxicity and quality of life (QOL) outcomes in patients treated on a hybrid protocol using five-fraction pelvic stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with a MRI dose painted HDR brachytherapy boost (HDR-BT). Methods: A phase I/II study was performed where intermediate (IR) and high-risk (HR) prostate cancer patients received HDR-BT 15Gy in single fraction to the prostate and up to 22.5Gy to the MRI nodule. Gantry-based 25Gy SABR was delivered to pelvis, seminal vesicles and prostate in 5 weekly fractions. ADT was used for 6-18 months. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0 was used to assess toxicities. QOL was captured using EPIC at every follow-up. A minimally clinically important change (MCIC) definition was triggered if the EPIC QOL score at each time point decreases > 0.5 SD, where SD is the standard deviation of baseline scores. Results: Thirty-three patients (NCCN 6.0% low IR, 45.5% high IR and 48.5% HR) completed this treatment with a median follow-up of 13.8 months (IQR 12.1, 18.8). The incidence of worst toxicities is shown in Table 1.The 3 grade 3 GU patients were due to temporary urinary catheterization in the acute period following HDR-BT. Mean (95% SD) EPIC urinary QOL scores were 82.5 (16.5), 83.2 (12.9) and 83.7 (16.3) at baseline, 3 months and 12 months and the bowel scores were 95.9 (3.8), 92.6 (8.2) and 90.5 (8.3), respectively. Proportion of patients experiencing MCIC at 3 months and 12 months were 20.8% and 14.3% for urinary domain, 47.8% and 53.9% for bowel domain; respectively (see Table). Conclusions: This novel treatment protocol incorporating MRI dose painted HDR brachytherapy boost and SABR pelvic radiation for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer in combination with ADT is feasible and well tolerated in the acute setting. Clinical trial information: REB 269-2014. [Table: see text]

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)0.000
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.348 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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