MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Impact of compliance on outcomes for patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer.

2019· article· en· W2922424266 on OpenAlexaff
Jay Detsky, Alireza Fotouhi Ghiam, Alexandre Mamedov, Kristina Commisso, Angela Commisso, Laurence Klotz, Stanley K. Liu, Andrew Loblaw, Danny Vesprini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerCohortLogistic regressionBiopsyExact testCancerProspective cohort studySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

36 Background: Active surveillance (AS) is the standard of care for low-risk prostate cancer to reduce the risk of overtreatment. However, the impact of compliance to AS on outcomes has not been well described. We hypothesized that compliance to an AS protocol and to the recommendation for active treatment would affect subsequent treatment failure. Methods: A prospective, single-arm cohort study was initiated in 1995 to assess an AS program. Triggers for intervention included a PSA doubling time of less than three years and histologic upgrade. The AS protocol was defined as PSA measurements every three months for two years and then twice annually, as well as a confirmatory biopsy within 12 months and then every three years. Compliance to the AS protocol was defined as four PSA tests and a confirmatory biopsy by 1.5 years after enrollment. Compliance to treatment was defined as the initiation of any active therapy within 12 months from the time of any trigger described above. Treatment failure was defined as a PSA > 0.2 after surgery, PSA > nadir + 2 for other treatments, or the development of metastases. Statistics were performed using logistic regression analysis and the Fisher exact test. Results: A total of 1282 patients were included in the final analysis, of which 460 received treatment. Median follow up was 7.1 years. The actuarial rate of biochemical control at five and 10 years amongst treated patients was 78% and 59% respectively. The rates of compliance to biopsy at years one, four and seven were 71%, 36% and 13%. The treatment failure rate was lower for patients compliant to the AS protocol (crude rate 28%) than those non-compliant (crude rate 38%) with an odds ratio of 0.64 (95% CI 0.43-0.94, p = 0.03). Patients compliant to the protocol were also less likely to develop metastases (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21-0.88, p = 0.02). There was no impact on treatment failure by adherence to active therapy within 12 months (p = 0.25) after reaching a trigger to come off AS. Conclusions: Non-compliance to an AS protocol leads to a higher risk of subsequent treatment failure and development of metastases. Physicians and patients need to work together diligently to ensure enrollment on an AS program is followed by adherence to regular PSA checks and repeat biopsies.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.661
GPT teacher head0.631
Teacher spread0.030 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→