Evaluating the tolerability of a simultaneous focal boost to the gross tumor in prostate SABR: A toxicity and quality-of-life comparison of two prospective trials.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
319 Background: Dose-escalated SABR to the whole prostate may be associated with better outcomes, but at a risk of increased toxicity. An alternative approach is to focally boost the dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) seen on MRI. We report the toxicity and quality of life (QOL) outcomes of two phase II trials of prostate and pelvic SABR, with or without a simultaneous DIL boost. Methods: The first trial treated patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) to a dose of 40 Gy to the prostate and 25 Gy to the pelvis in 5 fractions. The second trial treated patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk PCa to a dose of 35 Gy to the prostate, 25 Gy to the pelvis, and a DIL boost up to 50 Gy in 5 fractions. Acute toxicities, late toxicities and QOL were assessed. Results: 30 patients were enrolled in each trial. In the focal boost cohort, the median DIL D90% was 48.3 Gy. There was no significant difference in acute grade ≥2 GI or GU toxicity between the two trials, or cumulative worst late GI or GU toxicity up to 24 months. There was no significant difference in QOL domain scores or minimally clinical important change between the two trials. Conclusions: Prostate and pelvic SABR with a simultaneous DIL boost was feasible and did not lead to a significant change in toxicity or QOL when compared to a cohort that did not receive a focal boost. Further follow-up will be required to assess long-term outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT02911636.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".