Comparison of conventionally fractionated and hypofractionated schedule for post-prostatectomy salvage radiotherapy: Early results from non-randomized observational study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e551 Background: Data on hypofractionated radiotherapy in definitive treatment of prostate cancer are maturing; however, limited information is available for hypofractionated radiotherapy after prostatectomy. We aimed to compare hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy in salvage setting for biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed in 106 patients with proven PSA recurrence treated to the prostate bed. Patients were non-randomly, in a alternating fashion, subjected to either 52.5 Gy in 20 fractions of 2.625 Gy over 4 weeks (N = 57, hypofractionated group) or 66 Gy in 33 fractions of 2 Gy over 6.5 weeks (N = 49, conventionally fractionated group). There was no statistically significant difference in pathologic T-stage and Gleason score distribution between the groups. In the conventionally fractionated group there were more patients with positive margins (p = 0.01), more prevalent concomitant hormonal therapy (50.9% vs 61.2%, p = 0.001), but less long-term hormonal therapy (21.4% vs 81%, p < 0.001), compared to hypofractionated group. Median follow-up was 20 months (range 6-36 months). Failure (PSA nadir+0.2) rates between the groups were compared using Cox proportional hazards model. Radiation-related side-effects were assessed using RTOG scoring scale. Results: At this early point, 13 patients (22.8%), and 6 patients (12.2%) experienced treatment failure in the hypofractionated group and conventionally fractionated group, respectively (HR 3.1, 95%CI (1.5-6.3)). More late grade 2 gastrointestinal and genitourinary side-effects were observed in conventionally fractionated group (4.1% vs 1.8%, and 2% vs 0%, p = 0.01, respectively). No grade 3 toxicities were observed. Conclusions: More initial biochemical failures were observed in hypofractionated group compared to conventionally fractionated group. However, baseline heterogeneity between the groups and short follow-up preclude any causal observation of differential efficacy between these two schedules. Randomized phase II trial is planned to prospectively compare these two regimens.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".