MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921920097 · doi:10.1200/jco.2019.37.7_suppl.1

PACE: Analysis of acute toxicity in PACE-B, an international phase III randomized controlled trial comparing stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated external beam radiotherapy (CFMHRT) for localized prostate cancer (LPCa).

2019· article· en· W2921920097 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas John Van As, Douglas Brand, Alison Tree, Peter Ostler, William Chu, Andrew Loblaw, Daniel Ford, Shaun Tolan, Suneil Jain, Alexander S. Martin, John Staffurth, Stephanie Brown, Stephanie Burnett, Aileen Duffton, Clare Griffin, Vicki Hinder, Kirsty Morrison, Olivia Naismith, Emma Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyCohortExternal beam radiotherapyDose fractionationToxicityRandomized controlled trialUrologyRadiosurgeryProstate cancerNuclear medicineInternal medicineCancerBrachytherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1 Background: External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is a curative treatment for LPCa. Large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have shown moderately hypofractionated regimens (2.5–3 Gy/fraction(f)) as non-inferior to conventionally fractionated regimens (2 Gy/f). PACE-B aims to demonstrate non-inferiority of SBRT compared to CFMHRT for biochemical or clinical failure. Compared to CFMHRT, SBRT reduces patient (pt) attendances but compressed overall treatment time may influence acute toxicity severity. Methods: PACE is a phase III open-label multiple-cohort RCT. Men with LPCa, stage T1-T2, ≤ Gleason 3 + 4, PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL, unsuitable for surgery or preferring EBRT, were eligible for the PACE-B cohort. Between 08/12-01/18, 874 pts (38 centres) were randomised (1:1) to SBRT or CFMHRT. SBRT dose was 36.25 Gy/5f in 1-2 weeks (wks), CFMHRT as 78 Gy/39f over 7.5 wks, or 62 Gy/20f in 4 wks. Androgen deprivation therapy was not permitted. Clinician reported acute toxicity was assessed at baseline, 2-weekly during CFMHRT and at 2, 4, 8 & 12 wks post-treatment. Key toxicity outcomes were worst grade 2+ Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) acute toxicities, compared by Chi-square test with alpha 0.05 divided between the two measures. Results: By per protocol analysis n=430 received CFMHRT, n=414 received SBRT. Key characteristics seen in the CFMHRT and SBRT groups respectively were: mean age: 69.5 vs 69.3 years; T-stage ≥T2b: 51.8% vs 56.6%; Gleason Score 3+4: 80.2% vs 85.0%; PSA 10-20 ng/mL: 30.9% vs 31.6%. RTOG G2+ toxicity was not significantly different for GI events (CMFHRT 52/430 (12.1%) vs SBRT 42/414 (10.1%), p=0.368), nor GU events (CFMHRT 117/430 (27.2%) vs SBRT 96/414 (23.2%), p=0.179). Conclusions: Despite an accelerated treatment schedule, RTOG assessments show similar rates of acute GI and GU toxicity for SBRT and CFHFRT. Pt follow-up in PACE-B continues and results of late toxicity and biochemical/clinical failure are awaited. Clinical trial information: NCT01584258.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.423 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations29
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207