MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2920048684 · doi:10.1200/jco.2019.37.7_suppl.3

SABR in high-risk prostate cancer: Outcomes from two prospective clinical trials with and without elective nodal irradiation.

2019· article· en· W2920048684 on OpenAlexaff
Yasir Alayed, Patrick Cheung, Danny Vesprini, Stanley K. Liu, William Chu, Hans T. Chung, Hima Bindu Musunuru, Melanie Davidson, Ananth Ravi, Ling Ho, Andrea Deabreu, Laura D’Alimonte, Zeeba Bhounr, Liying Zhang, Kristina Commisso, Andrew Loblaw

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerSABR volatility modelProstateUrologyInternal medicineProspective cohort studyClinical trialProstate-specific antigenOncologyCancerSurgeryGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3 Background: There is limited data on SABR in high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) especially regarding the role of elective nodal irradiation (ENI). This study compares two prospective phase II trials using SABR in high-risk prostate cancer, with and without ENI. Methods: Both trials enrolled patients with high-risk PCa only. Trial1 (pHART8) patients received 40Gy/5 to the prostate and 30Gy/5 to the seminal vesicles. Trial2 (SATURN) patients received 40Gy/5 to the prostate and 25Gy/5 to the pelvis and seminal vesicles. CTCAE and RTOG toxicities were collected. Biochemical failure (BF) was defined as nadir+2 and 4-year PSA response rate (4yPSARR) was < 0.4 ng/ml. Results: 60 patients were included (pHART8, n=30; SATURN, n=30). Median follow-up was 5.6y and 4.0y. Median nPSA was 0.02ng/ml for both. Six patients had BF, all from pHART8; four were managed with ADT and two are being observed. The BF rate was 14.6% at 5y in pHART8 and 0% in SATURN. All six biochemical failures were associated with a PSA of ≥ 0.4 ng/ml at 4y. 63% of patients in pHART8 and 93% in SATURN had a 4yPSARR. BF probability at 5y was 0% for those achieving a 4yPSARR, and 35.1% if not (p = p < 0.0001). Two patients died in pHART8, one from metastatic disease. One patient in SATURN died from other causes. No other patients developed metastatic disease, and one patient in pHART8 had CRPC. OS at 5y was 93.2% and 96.7% (p=0.86). There was significantly worse late GI and sexual toxicity in pHART8, but no difference in late GU toxicity between the two trials. Conclusions: SABR in high-risk prostate cancer yields biochemical control rates that are comparable to other radiotherapy modalities. ENI using SABR is feasible and led to a significant improvement in biochemical control as well as in 4yPSARR which proved to be a predictor of biochemical control, without an increase in late GI or GU toxicity. Longer follow-up would provide a better assessment of biochemical control. Clinical trial information: NCT01505075 and NCT01953055.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.401 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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