MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995144939 · doi:10.1111/bju.14976

Salvage radical prostatectomy following focal therapy: functional and oncological outcomes

2019· article· en· W2995144939 on OpenAlexaff
Jaime O. Herrera‐Cáceres, G.J. Nason, Noelia Salgado‐Sanmamed, Hanan Goldberg, Dixon Woon, T. Chandrasekar, Khaled Ajib, Guan Hee Tan, Omar Alhunaidi, Theodorus van der Kwast, Antonio Finelli, Alexandre R. Zlotta, Robert J. Hamilton, Alejandro Berlín, Nathan Perlis, Neil Fleshner

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeBiochemical recurrenceProstatectomySalvage therapyCryotherapySurgeryInternational Prostate Symptom ScoreRetrospective cohort studyUrologyHazard ratioConfidence intervalProstateLower urinary tract symptomsInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To report the oncological and functional outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) after focal therapy (FT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent sRP after FT was performed. Clinical and pathological outcomes focussed on surgical complications, oncological, and functional outcomes. RESULTS: In all, 34 patients were identified. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 61 (8.25) years. FT modalities included high-intensity focussed ultrasound (19 patients), laser ablation (13), focal brachytherapy (one) and cryotherapy (one). The median (IQR) time from FT to recurrence was 10.9 (17.6) months. There were no rectal or ureteric injuries. Two (5.9%) patients had iatrogenic cystotomies and four (11.8%) developed bladder neck contractures. The mean (sd) hospital stay was 2.5 (2.1) days. The T-stage was pT2 in 14 (41.2%) patients, pT3a in 16 (47.1%), and pT3b in four (11.8%). In all, 13 (38%) patients had positive surgical margins (PSMs). Six (17.6%) patients received adjuvant radiotherapy (RT). At a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, seven (20.6%) patients developed biochemical recurrence (BCR), and of these, six (17.6%) patients required salvage RT. PSMs were associated with worse BCR-free survival (hazard ratio 6.624, 95% confidence interval 2.243-19.563; P < 0.001). The median (IQR) preoperative International Prostate Symptom Score and International Index of Erectile Function score was 7 (4.5-9.5) and 23.5 (15.75-25) respectively, while in the final follow-up the median (IQR) values were 7 (3.5-11) and 6 (5-12.25), respectively (P = 0.088 and P < 0.001). At last follow-up, 31 (91.2%) patients were continent, two (5.9%) had moderate (>1 pad/day) incontinence, and one (2.9%) required an artificial urinary sphincter. CONCLUSIONS: sRP should be considered as an option for patients who have persistent clinically significant prostate cancer or recurrence after FT. PSMs should be recognised as a risk for recurrent disease after sRP.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations32
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207