Oncological outcomes of salvage cryotherapy after primary radiation therapy vs. primary cryotherapy: 10-year experience at a large Canadian referral center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Salvage cryotherapy is a guideline-recommended treatment of localized prostate cancer recurrence after radiation therapy. There is little published evidence analyzing the outcomes of salvage cryotherapy for recurrent prostate cancer following different primary therapy energy modalities. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who received whole gland salvage cryotherapy from 2007-2017 at a large tertiary referral center after either primary radiation therapy (RT) or primary whole gland cryotherapy. Primary outcome was biochemical failure, defined as per the Phoenix criteria (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] nadir + 2.0 ng/ml). Secondary outcomes included time to biochemical failure and development of metastatic disease. RESULTS: Fifty-eight of 391 patients who received cryotherapy were identified as having received salvage cryotherapy (after RT, n=37; after primary cryotherapy, n=21). Biochemical recurrence occurred in 21 (57%) patients with previous RT and in 17 (81%) patients with previous cryotherapy (p=0.001). Median time to biochemical recurrence was 18 months for patients with previous RT and 13 months for patients with previous cryotherapy (p=0.002). The biochemical-free survival rate for primary radiation therapy patients was 71% at two years compared to 23% at two years for patients who underwent primary cryotherapy (p<0.01). There was no difference in the development of metastatic disease between groups (19% vs. 18%, cryo vs. radiation, p=0.34). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that salvage cryotherapy may offer more durable oncological control to patients after radiation compared to primary cryotherapy, with a lower rate and longer duration before biochemical recurrence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".