MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The use of five-alpha reductase inhibitors and their association with reclassification and pathologic outcomes in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS).

2017· article· en· W2603622689 on OpenAlexaff
James T. Kearns, Anna Faino, Lisa F. Newcomb, James D. Brooks, Peter R. Carroll, Atreya Dash, William J. Ellis, Michael D. Fabrizio, Martin Gleave, Todd M. Morgan, Peter S. Nelson, Ian M. Thompson, Andrew A. Wagner, Yingye Zheng, Daniel W. Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancer5 Alpha-Reductase InhibitorInternal medicineBiopsyProstateCancerProstate biopsyGynecologyFinasteride

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

22 Background: The outcomes of patients who enroll in active surveillance (AS) programs for prostate cancer (PCa) while currently taking five-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) have not been well defined. Previous studies suggest that the initiation of 5-ARIs after enrolling in AS decreases the rate of reclassification and/or treatment for PCa, but there is still an FDA black box warning about the risk of grade risk prostate cancer while on 5-ARI. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of remaining on a 5-ARI after initiating AS for PCa. Methods: All men were enrolled in PASS. Inclusion criteria were current or never 5-ARI user, Gleason 3+3 or 3+4 PCa at diagnosis, ≤ 34% core ratio at diagnosis and ≥ 1 surveillance biopsy. Reclassification was defined as an increase in Gleason score and/or ratio of biopsy cores positive for cancer to ≥ 34%. Results: 1045 men were included in this study, 938 who had never used a 5-ARI and 107 5-ARI users. 5-ARI users had larger prostate volume (51 cc vs 40 cc, p < 0.01), a higher rate of BPH (77% vs 29%, p < 0.01) and older age (65 vs 62 years, p < 0.01). All other clinical parameters, including serum PSA, were statistically similar. Kaplan Meier analysis of any reclassification is shown in the figure. There was no significant difference in any reclassification (p = 0.12). The use of 5-ARI at diagnosis was significantly protective for reclassification in a proportional hazards model (HR 0.68, p = 0.03); this difference was not significant after accounting for serum PSA, BMI, prostate size and positive cores ratio at diagnosis (HR 0.78, p = 0.18). There was no significant effect on adjusted analysis when evaluating for disease upgrading. 171 patients underwent radical prostatectomy (RP), 158 never 5-ARI users and 13 5-ARI users. There were no statistically significant differences when evaluating for Gleason grade or adverse pathology. 5-ARI users had a longer median time to RP (3.6 vs 2.1 years, p = 0.045). Conclusions: There is no association between 5-ARI use at diagnosis and reclassification on AS for men in the Canary PASS cohort. 5-ARI users have a longer median time to RP and do not have more severe PCa at RP.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.270 · 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→