Treating the primary in metastatic prostate cancer: where do we stand?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Traditionally, local treatment was reserved for palliative control of symptoms in men with metastatic prostate cancer. In the past few years there have been many advances in the systemic options available. The aim of this review is to explore the evidence in support of treating the primary tumor despite the presence of metastatic disease. RECENT FINDINGS: There is a wealth of retrospective studies demonstrating advantages of local treatment [radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy (RT)] in metastatic disease. As these studies are prone to bias, treatment of the primary in the metastatic setting has not been adopted. However, two recent prospective randomized trials (HORRAD and STAMPEDE) have addressed the role of RT to the prostate in metastatic disease. The STAMPEDE sub-group analysis of low-volume metastatic disease demonstrated a survival advantage in favor of the RT arm (hazard ratio 0.68; 95% CI 0.52-0.90). The HORRAD trial showed a similar but nonsignificant trend towards RT (hazard ratio 0.68; 95% CI 0.42-1.10). As a result, the 2019 European Association of Urology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines now include RT to the prostate as an option in the setting of low-volume metastatic disease. SUMMARY: Although systemic treatment remains standard of care for men with metastatic prostate cancer, there is recent compelling evidence from two prospective randomized trials supporting treatment of the prostate in oligometastatic disease.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".