MP22-12 ONCOLOGICAL OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH HIGH LYMPH NODE BURDEN AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Advanced (including Drug Therapy) II (MP22)1 Apr 2019MP22-12 ONCOLOGICAL OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH HIGH LYMPH NODE BURDEN AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY Raisa Pompe*, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Zhe Tian, Felix Preisser, Philipp Mandel, Philipp Gild, Thomas Steuber, Georg Salomon, Markus Graefen, Margit Fisch, Hartwig Huland, and Derya Tilki Raisa Pompe*Raisa Pompe* More articles by this author , Pierre I. KarakiewiczPierre I. Karakiewicz More articles by this author , Zhe TianZhe Tian More articles by this author , Felix PreisserFelix Preisser More articles by this author , Philipp MandelPhilipp Mandel More articles by this author , Philipp GildPhilipp Gild More articles by this author , Thomas SteuberThomas Steuber More articles by this author , Georg SalomonGeorg Salomon More articles by this author , Markus GraefenMarkus Graefen More articles by this author , Margit FischMargit Fisch More articles by this author , Hartwig HulandHartwig Huland More articles by this author , and Derya TilkiDerya Tilki More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000555597.85110.fbAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To describe oncological outcomes of patients with high lymph node burden (≥4 positive nodes) and to assess the impact of adjuvant therapies. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 273 patients with ≥4 positive lymph nodes after radical prostatectomy (RP) and lymph node dissection between 2007 and 2015. Patients received adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (aADT), aADT plus adjuvant radiation (aRT) or observation (including salvage ADT). Kaplan-Meier curves as well as multivariable Cox-regression analyses compared biochemical recurrence (BCR), metastatic progression (MP) and overall mortality (OM) between the different treatment modalities. RESULTS: Overall 55 patients received aADT, 34 aADT + aRT and 184 observation (including 96 with salvage ADT). For the entire cohort 2-year BCR-free survival, MP-free survival and overall survival rates were 33.0% (27.2-40.1%), 76.6% (71.0-82.8%) and 90.3% (86.1-94.8%). While patients with aADT + aRT had significantly better BCR-free survival rates (78.6% vs. 29.7% (aADT) vs. 25.8% (observation), p<0.001) MP-free survival and overall survival did not differ between the groups (p>0.05). In multivariable Cox regression analyses aADT+aRT was significantly associated with a lower BCR rate (HR aADT: 5.55, HR observation: 6.15, both p<0.001), while there was no effect on MP or overall mortality (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with high lymph node burden, combination of aADT+aRT might lower BCR risk. However, further oncological outcomes, namely MP and overall mortality, were not affected by the addition of radiation therapy. Source of Funding: none Hamburg, Germany; Montreal, Canada; Frankfurt, Germany; Hamburg, Germany© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e321-e321 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Raisa Pompe* More articles by this author Pierre I. Karakiewicz More articles by this author Zhe Tian More articles by this author Felix Preisser More articles by this author Philipp Mandel More articles by this author Philipp Gild More articles by this author Thomas Steuber More articles by this author Georg Salomon More articles by this author Markus Graefen More articles by this author Margit Fisch More articles by this author Hartwig Huland More articles by this author Derya Tilki More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".