Comparison of external beam radiotherapy versus permanent seed brachytherapy as monotherapy for intermediate-risk prostate cancer - a single center Canadian experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We tested different classification systems in order to separate intermediate-risk prostate cancers into prognostic groups. We then examined which groups were most suited for either prostate seed brachytherapy (PB) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We selected patients with D'Amico intermediate-risk prostate cancer who were treated exclusively with either PB or EBRT. Patients were excluded if they had received androgen deprivation therapy in combination with EBRT or a follow up of < 30 months without recurrence. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare groups. RESULTS: Our sample consisted of 475 patients treated from July 2002-September 2013. Median follow up for patients without biochemical failure (BF) was 56 months (interquartile range 44-78); 222 patients (47%) were treated with PB exclusively (D90 interquartile range 145-176 Gy) and 253 (53%) with EBRT exclusively (dose interquartile range 76-80 Gy). The rate of BF was significantly lower in patients treated with PB (5.4%) than in patients treated with EBRT (14.2%) (p = 0.036, log-rank test). Upon univariate analysis, significant predictors of BF included the number of unfavorable intermediate-risk factors (0, 1, 2, 3) (p = 0.024) as well as the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score (p = 0.002). After adjusting for the type of treatment, only the CAPRA score remained predictive (p = 0.025). For patients with a CAPRA score of 0-2, those with PB fared better than those treated with EBRT (p = 0.042). This difference disappeared in patients with a CAPRA score of 3-5 (p = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Using our current selection criteria for monotherapy, we found that PB or EBRT as monotherapy are equally effective treatment options for intermediate-risk prostate cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".