MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2735966896 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.4304

Salvage prostatectomy for post-radiation adenocarcinoma with treatment effect: Pathological and oncological outcomes

2017· article· en· W2735966896 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Metcalfe, Patricia Troncoso, Charles C. Guo, Hsiang-Chun Chen, Yaşar Bozkurt, John F. Ward, Louis L. Pisters

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineProstatectomyPathologicalRadiation therapyAdenocarcinomaProstatic adenocarcinomaOncologyProstate cancerUrologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Prostate biopsies following localized radiation therapy for prostate cancer often demonstrate residual prostatic carcinoma with treatment effect (CTE). The final oncological outcome of prostatic CTE is currently uncertain. We studied the pathological and oncological outcomes for a large cohort of patients who had CTE on post-radiation therapy biopsy and subsequently underwent salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP). METHODS: A single-centre retrospective review of all SRPs performed from 1995-2014 was performed. Cases were selected for this analysis if they had had a post-radiation "for-cause" biopsy. Biopsy results were compared to final pathology results following SRP. Pathological and clinical outcomes were compared by extent of treatment effect seen on the post-radiation biopsy. RESULTS: A total of 70 patients who had salvage prostatectomy at MD Anderson Cancer Centre from 2007-2015 met study criteria. CTE was found on biopsy in the absence of other adenocarcinoma in 16 patients. Among them, one (7%) patient had no evidence of carcinoma at the time of salvage prostatectomy, four (27%) had CTE, three (20%) had adenocarcinoma with minimal or partial treatment effect (PTE), and seven (47%) had adenocarcinoma with no treatment effect (NTE). For those with CTE on biopsy, 69% had biochemical recurrence at a median time of 0.4 years (interquartile range [IQR] 0.22-1.52) vs. 52% for all patients (median 0.44 years, IQR 0.11-1.70) and 47% for those with no treatment effect (median 0.62 years, IQR 0.05-1.90). Metastasis developed after salvage prostatectomy in 11.8% of the whole cohort (8/68, median time to metastasis was 3.03 years, IQR 2.45-4.47), 26.7% of patients with CTE (median 3.2 years, IQR 1.96-4.44), and 6.7% of patients with NTE (median 2.45 years, IQR 0.98-2.86). Median recurrence-free survival was 2.78 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-5.43) for all patients, 0.51 years (95% CI 0.22-2.35) for those with CTE, and 4.95 years (95% CI 0.95-7.08) for those with NTE; the difference was not significant (p=0.13). On multivariate analysis, pre-SRP biopsy Gleason grade <7 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.38; 95% CI 0.14-1.02) and number of biopsy cores positive for carcinoma (HR 1.11; 95% CI 1.00-1.22) were significant for prediction of cancer recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing salvage prostatectomy for CTE or PTE demonstrated in a for-cause biopsy after radiation therapy had pathological evidence of viable, untreated cancer in more than 50% of cases and were at significant risk of adverse pathological features. Patients with CTE may therefore benefit from salvage radical prostatectomy. Our study is limited by its retrospective nature and sample size. More studies are required to further validate our findings and assess the benefit of SRP in this population.

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)0.003
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
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→