Current topics in radiotherapy for genitourinary cancers: Consensus statements of the Genitourinary Radiation Oncologists of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The biennial meeting of the Genitourinary Radiation Oncologists of Canada (GUROC) took place November 22-23, 2019. A consensus-building session was held during the meeting addressing topics of emerging interest or controversy in the management of genitourinary malignancies. METHODS: Draft statements were debated among all meeting attendees in an open forum with anonymous live voting. Statements for which there was at least 75% agreement among attendees were adopted as GUROC consensus. RESULTS: Four evidence-based consensus statements were developed. First, the use of prostate radiotherapy is recommended in the setting of de novo low-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer to improve overall survival. Second, the support of ongoing randomized trials evaluating metastasis-directed ablative local therapy in oligometastatic prostate cancer is recommended; where such trials are available, off-trial use of oligometastasis-directed ablative radiotherapy at this time is strongly discouraged. Third, routine use of prostate-rectal hydrogel spacer devices in patients with localized prostate cancer planned to receive external beam radiotherapy is not recommended; instead, selective use in patients at highest risk of rectal toxicity may be considered. Finally, multidisciplinary consultation is recommended for all patients with newly diagnosed localized muscle-invasive bladder cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The GUROC consensus statements provide practical guidance to clinicians in areas of current controversy in the management of prostate and bladder cancer, and it is hoped that their implementation will contribute to improved outcomes in real-world practice and greater support of clinical trials.
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 | 0.079 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".