MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Stereotactic pelvic radiotherapy with HDR boost for dose escalation in intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer (SPARE): Efficacy, survival, and late toxicity outcomes.

2020· article· en· W3007869911 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew Loblaw, Bindu Musunuru, Patrick Cheung, Danny Vesprini, Stanley K. Liu, William Chu, Hans T. Chung, Gerard Morton, Andrea Deabreu, Melanie Davidson, Ananth Ravi, Joelle Helou, Ling Ho, Liying Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreSunnybrook HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersProstate Cancer Canada
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerBrachytherapyAndrogen deprivation therapyProstateUrologyRadiation therapyCyberknifePelvisSurgeryCancerInternal medicineRadiosurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

328 Background: The ASCO/CCO guidelines recommend brachytherapy boost for all eligible intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer patients. We present efficacy, survival and late toxicity outcomes in patients treated on a prospective, single institutional protocol of MRI dose painted HDR brachytherapy boost (HDR-BT) followed by pelvic stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Methods: A phase I/II study was performed where intermediate (IR) or high-risk (HR) prostate cancer patients received HDR-BT 15Gy x 1 to the prostate and up to 22.5Gy to the MRI nodule and followed by gantry-based SBRT 25Gy in 5 weekly fractions delivered to pelvis, seminal vesicles and prostate. ADT was used for 6-18 months. CTCAEv3 was used to assess toxicities and was captured q6months x 5 years. Biochemical failure (BF; nadir + 2 definition), nadir PSA, proportion of patients with PSA < 0.4 ng/ml at 4 years (4yPSARR), incidence of salvage therapy, cause specific survival and overall survival were calculated. Day 0 was HDR-BT date for all time-to-event analyses. Results: Thirty-two patients (NCCN 3% favorable IR, 47% unfavorable IR and 50% HR) completed the planned treatment with a median follow-up of 50 months; 31 of these had an MRI nodule. Four patients had BF with actuarial 4-year BF rate of 11.5%; 3 of these received salvage ADT. Median nPSA was 0.02 ng/ml; 4yPSARR was 68.8%. One patient died (of prostate cancer) at 45 months. For late toxicities, grade 1, 2 and 3+ GU and GI toxicities were: 40.6%, 37.5%, 3% and 28.1%, 0%, 0%, respectively. Conclusions: This novel treatment protocol incorporating MRI-dose painted HDR brachytherapy boost and SBRT pelvic radiation for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer in combination with ADT is feasible, effective and well tolerated. Clinical trial information: 12345678. [Table: see text]

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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