MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Quality of life outcomes from a phase III trial exploring optimal sequencing of androgen deprivation therapy with external beam radiotherapy in localized prostate cancer.

2020· article· en· W3007049520 on OpenAlexaff
Soumyajit Roy, Scott Grimes, Libni Eapen, E Choan, Kyle Malone, Julia Craig, Scott C. Morgan, Shawn Malone

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerAndrogen deprivation therapyQuality of life (healthcare)Radiation therapyWilcoxon signed-rank testStatistical significanceClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialUrologyInternal medicineProstateCancerOncologyMann–Whitney U test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

315 Background: Dose-escalated prostate radiotherapy (PRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a standard curative treatment for localized prostate cancer (LPCa). The optimal sequencing of these therapies is unclear. We report the patient-reported health related quality of life (HR-QoL) outcomes from a phase III study exploring optimal sequencing of PRT with ADT in LPCa. Methods: Newly diagnosed LPCa patients with Gleason score ≤7, clinical stage T1b-T3a, and PSA < 30 ng/mL were randomized to receive PRT (76 Gy/38 fractions) with 6 months (mos) of ADT starting 4 mos prior to RT (NAHT arm) or concurrently with RT (CAHT arm). HR-QoL was assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30 and PR25 at baseline, q2 mos while on ADT, q4 mos for year 1 and 2 after ADT, q6 mos from year 3 to 5 and annually thereafter. Linear mixed modelling was applied to compare change in score (relative to baseline) over time. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to identify between-group difference in absolute scores, at 18, 36 and 60 mos. The statistical and clinical significance was set at p≤0.01 and 10-point threshold, respectively. Results: Overall 432 men were enrolled in the study and 393 (194 in NAHT and 199 in CAHT arm) were eligible for HR-QoL evaluation. There was a significant difference in the change in score of sleep disturbance due to urinary bother (least-squared mean: 3.9 vs. 7.6, P = 0.001) between the two arms. Although there were statistically significant differences in absolute scores of global QoL (18, 60 mos), cognitive (18, 60 mos), social and emotional functions (60 mo), sexual intimacy (18 mo) and fatigue (60 mo) favoring NAHT, the only clinically meaningful difference was noted in ejaculatory dysfunction at 18 (mean: 52.5 vs. 64.6), 36 (60.2 vs. 49.2) & 60 mos (61.4 vs. 50.9), respectively. Conclusions: We did not find any notable difference between the two arms with respect to score change over time in any of the HR-QoL metrics except sleep disturbance due to urinary bother. Clinically meaningful difference was noted only in the late absolute ejaculatory dysfunction score which favored the NAHT arm. Based on these findings, both NAHT and CAHT with PRT are reasonable standards of care for LPCa. Clinical trial information: DC-990-0082.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.234
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designNon-randomized 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→