MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Is there a relationship between testosterone levels at the end of short-term androgen deprivation therapy and outcomes in intermediate risk prostate cancer? Prospective data from a phase III trial.

2017· article· en· W2603478463 on OpenAlexaff
Abdenour Nabid, Marie‐Pierre Garant, Éric Vigneault, Luís Souhami, Céline Lemaire, Marc-André Brassard, Boris Bahoric, Robert Archambault, F. Vincent, T.V. Nguyen-Huynh, Rédouane Bettahar, Derek Wilke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCégep de RimouskiCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalHôpital Notre-DameCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-QuébecNova Scotia Cancer CentreCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecCentre de Santé et de Services Sociaux de ChicoutimiHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontMcGill University Health CentreCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerTestosterone (patch)Androgen deprivation therapyUrologyGoserelinAntiandrogenBicalutamideAndrogenProportional hazards modelAnalysis of varianceCancerProstateInternal medicineGynecologyHormoneAndrogen receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

78 Background: The purpose of this analysis was to assess whether the testosterone level measured at the end of short term androgen deprivation therapy (STADT) and prostate radiotherapy (RT) has an impact on treatment outcomes in patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer (IRPC) treated on a randomized trial (PCS III ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT00223145). Methods: From December 2000 to September 2010, 400 patients with IRPC received 6 months of STADT (bicalutamide 50mg die and goserelin 10.8mg x 2) and RT. Castrate level of testosterone was defined as <1.7 nmol/L: lower level <0.7 and upper level 0.7-1.7. In 347/400 patients, testosterone levels were available at the end of STADT and were divided into 3 groups based on measured testosterone levels: <0.7, 0.7 to 1.7 and >1.7 nmol/L. Patient’s characteristics were compared with ANOVA and Fisher’s exact test. Biochemical failure, prostate cancer recurrence and death were compared with Cox regression. Results: Patient’s characteristics were well balanced between the 3 groups with no statistical difference for age, performance status, PSA at start, Gleason score and stage. At the end of STADT 55.3% (192/347) presented testosterone levels <0.7 and 38.9% (135/347) levels between 0.7 and 1.7 for a total of 94.2% (327/ 347) reaching castrate levels ≤1.7 nmol/L. In 5.8% of patients (20/347) a castrate testosterone level was not achieved. With a median follow-up of 8.1 years, outcomes are shown in the table. Conclusions: In IRPC patients treated with STADT and RT, the majority of patients (94.2%) achieve a castrate level of testosterone (<1.7 nmol/L). Although we could not show a difference in outcomes between castrate and non-castrate patients, these data have to be viewed with caution given the small number of non-castrate patients studied. Source of Funding: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals Grant. Clinical trial information: NCT00223145. [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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.439
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.119 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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