MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Stereotactic radiotherapy +/- HDR boost for unfavorable-risk prostate cancer: Comparison of efficacy, survival, and late toxicity outcomes.

2020· article· en· W3008976335 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Loblaw, Patrick Cheung, Danny Vesprini, Stanley K. Liu, William Chu, Hans T. Chung, Gerard Morton, Bindu Musunuru, 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
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerBrachytherapyAndrogen deprivation therapyProstatePelvisRadiation therapyCyberknifeUrologyOncologyCancerInternal medicineSurgeryRadiosurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

372 Background: The ASCO/CCO guidelines recommend brachytherapy boost for all eligible intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer patients. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an emerging treatment for prostate cancer but its use in high risk disease is limited. We compare efficacy, survival and late toxicity outcomes in patients treated on 2 prospective, phase 2 protocols that both use pelvic SBRT and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). One used MR-guided HDR brachytherapy boost (SPARE) and the other uses a SBRT boost (SATURN). Methods: SPARE was a phase I/II study 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. ADT was used for 6-18 months. SATURN was a phase II study where high risk patients received 40Gy to prostate and 25Gy to pelvis along in 5 weekly fractions with 12-18 months ADT. 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 were calculated. Day 0 was first day of RT for all time-to-event analyses. Results: Thirty-two patients (NCCN 3% favorable IR, 47% unfavorable IR (UIR), 50% HR) completed SPARE while 30 patients (7% UIR, 93% HR) completed SATURN. Median follow-up of 50 and 48 months, respectively. Actuarial 4-year BF was 11.5% and 0%. Median nPSA was 0.02 ng/ml for both studies. 4yPSARR was 69% and 93%. 4-year cause-specific survival was 96% and 100%. Toxicities are listed in Table. Conclusions: In the context of SBRT pelvis and ADT, SBRT boost provides similar efficacy for unfavorable risk prostate cancer with acceptable but worse toxicities compared to HDR boost. A randomized study is recommended to answer this question. Clinical trial information: 01953055. [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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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