MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MP70-02 DOES SALVAGE WHOLE GLAND CYROABLATION THERAPY CONFER SURVIVAL ADVANTAGE TO PATIENTS WHO FAILED PRIMARY RADIOTHERAPY FOR PROSTATE CANCER?

2020· article· en· W3021287268 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shiva Nair, Andrew Warner, George Rodrigues, Joseph L. Chin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerRadiation therapySalvage therapyProstatectomyAndrogen deprivation therapyCancerProstateSurgeryOncologyInternal medicineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Image-guided destruction of individual prostate cancer foci while sparing benign prostate tissue is emerging as a viable alternative to radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation for some patients.These focal therapies have lower rates of side effects than whole-gland treatment, yet long-term cancer control remains unknown.It is widely recognized that prostate cancers are usually larger than they appear on MRI, yet there is no universally accepted treatment margin size needed to achieve adequate cancer control for focal therapy.In this study, we used a 3D co-registration algorithm to fuse pre-operative MRI and RP whole-mount histopathology from 51 patients.We sought to assess the cancer control and ablative efficiency achieved using margins drawn by a genitourinary radiologist.METHODS: From March 2014 to November 2018, 277 patients underwent prostate MRI, targeted and systematic prostate biopsy, and RP with whole-mount sectioning at Stanford.Fifty-one putative focal therapy candidates with unilateral, Gleason !7 cancer on biopsy were chosen from this cohort.Prostates were sectioned using 3Dprinted personalized molds.Digitized whole-mount pathology slides were co-registered to pre-operative MRI using a 3D co-registration algorithm.Using MRI and biopsy data while blinded to final prostatectomy pathology, a radiologist (PG) generated focal therapy margins around biopsy-proven MR lesions by adding 1 cm margins around the lesion and then modifying based on biopsy result.RESULTS: Focal therapy cancer control, calculated as the volumetric percentage of pathologic cancer within the planned ablation region, ranged from 54-99% (median 80%).Ablative efficiency, calculated as the percentage of the ablation region that was pathologically cancerous, ranged from 5-26% (median 11%).CONCLUSIONS: We found that adding 1 cm ablation margins to MRI-visible cancer foci achieved cancer control of 80%, while ablating a large amount of benign tissue.Further improvements to margin treatment planning are needed.Using this dataset, we are now investigating crescentic ablation region planning based on the finding that that inadequately treated cancers often follow capsular borders (Fig 1, center panel).

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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