MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The ELDORADO study: A phase II randomised study of concurrent weekly docetaxel, IMRT, and ltadt in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

2013· article· en· W2969587751 on OpenAlexaff
Derek Wilke, Lori Wood, Heather Walker, David Bell, Ricardo Rendon, Helmut Hollenhorst, Robert Rutledge, David Bowes, James L. Robar, Arik Drucker, Slawa Cwajna, Greg Bailly, Tetteh Ago

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health AuthorityDalhousie UniversityQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDocetaxelProstate cancerProstatectomyUrologyRandomized controlled trialRadiation therapyProstateClinical endpointInternal medicineChemotherapyAndrogen deprivation therapyHazard ratioNomogramOncologyCancerConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

5048 Background: Treatment intensification is warranted for ‘high risk’ prostate cancer. Docetaxel (DO) and radiotherapy (IMRT) may cause dose-limiting GI or GU toxicity. Treating the whole pelvis last (WP-L) versus the whole pelvic lymphatics first (WP-F) could reduce the number of dose delays or omissions of DO. Methods: We performed a double-blind, randomized trial, in patients with ‘high risk’ non-metastatic prostate cancer who had any one of the following: 1) ≥ T2c TNM category, 2) Gleason score ≥ 8, or PSA > 20 and < 50 µg/L, OR have a greater than 50% risk of recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP), as predicted by the Kattan nomogram, with no evidence of metastatic disease. Patients receive long-term androgen deprivation therapy (LTADT), and after 4 months of neoadjuvant ADT, receive IMRT and concurrent DO 20 mg/m2 x 8 weekly infusions. Patients were randomized to receive WP-F followed by a boost to the prostate/prostate bed, or to have WP-L. The primary outcome was to compare the number of DO dose reductions, delays or omissions due to GI or GU toxicity, between arms. Target sample size was 86 patients (pts). Results: 98 pts were registered, 88 were randomized, 2 withdrew consent, leaving 42 pts randomized to WP-F, and 44 pts to WP-L. The trial was closed to accrual Feb 2, 2012. Twenty-five pts had previous RP (29%). Seven pts (16.6%) allocated to WP-F had chemotherapy dose reductions/delays versus 3 pts (6.8%) allocated to WP-L , which was not statistically significant (p=0.19). Overall 80.2% of pts received all 8 weekly doses of DO and IMRT (WP-F vs. WP-L: 78.6% vs.81.8%, p=0.9). Actuarial overall survival at 4 years is 96 % (WP-F vs. WP-L: 94% vs.97%, p=0.6). Biochemical relapse-free survival at 4 years is 96.7% (WP-F vs. WP-L: 98% vs.97%, p=0.92). Two patients have needed surgical intervention for Grade > 3 GU toxicity. Cumulative treatment-related grade 3 or 4 GI or GU toxicity was 36%. When patients were last seen, only 2/84 (2.3%) patients had ongoing grade 3 GI or GU toxicity at a median follow up of 2.7 years Conclusions: Concurrent use of DO and IMRT is feasible with reasonable toxicity. Sequence inversion does not enhance chemotherapy delivery. Clinical trial information: NCT00452556.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.402 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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