MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046375573 · doi:10.1016/j.jbo.2020.100311

Guidance for the assessment and management of prostate cancer treatment-induced bone loss. A consensus position statement from an expert group

2020· article· en· W3046375573 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Janet E. Brown, Catherine Handforth, Juliet Compston, William Cross, Nigel J. Parr, Peter Selby, Steven L. Wood, Lawrence Drudge‐Coates, Jennifer Walsh, Caroline Mitchell, Fiona Collinson, Robert E. Coleman, Nicholas D. James, Roger M. Francis, David M. Reid, Eugène McCloskey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of bone oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthRoyal Osteoporosis SocietyProstate Cancer UKBritish Geriatrics SocietyNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchEuropean Association of UrologyNational Comprehensive Cancer NetworkNational Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceAmerican Society of Clinical OncologyEuropean SocieTy for Radiotherapy and OncologyAmgenCancer Care Ontario
KeywordsMedicineAndrogen deprivation therapyFRAXGuidelineOsteoporosisProstate cancerContext (archaeology)PopulationPhysical therapyIntensive care medicineCancerInternal medicineBone mineralPathologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Incidence of prostate cancer (PC) is increasing, but androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and other therapies are substantially improving survival. In this context, careful consideration of skeletal health is required to reduce the risk of treatment-related fragility fractures and their associated morbidity and mortality. This risk is currently not well-managed. ADT causes significant loss of bone mineral density (BMD). In the metastatic setting, systemic treatments (e.g. chemotherapy, abiraterone, enzalutamide) are used alongside ADT and may require concomitant glucocorticoids. Both ADT and glucocorticoids pose significant challenges to skeletal health in a population of patients already likely to have ongoing age-related bone loss and/or comorbid conditions. Current PC guidelines lack specific recommendations for optimising bone health. This guidance presents evidence for assessment and management of bone health in this population, with specific recommendations for clinical practitioners in day-to-day PC management. METHODS: Structured meetings of key opinion leaders were integrated with a systematic literature review. Input and endorsement was sought from patients, nursing representatives and specialist societies. SUMMARY OF GUIDANCE: All men starting or continuing long-term ADT should receive lifestyle advice regarding bone health. Calcium/vitamin D supplementation should be offered if required. Fracture risk should be calculated (using the FRAX® tool), with BMD assessment included where feasible. BMD should always be assessed where fracture risk calculated using FRAX® alone is close to the intervention threshold. Intervention should be provided if indicated by local or national guidelines e.g. UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) thresholds. Men requiring bone protection therapy should be further assessed (e.g. renal function), with referral to specialist centres if available and offered appropriate treatment to reduce fracture risk. Those near to, but below an intervention threshold, and patients going on to additional systemic therapies (particularly those requiring glucocorticoids), should have FRAX® (including BMD) repeated after 12-18 months. PATIENT SUMMARY: Modern treatments for prostate cancer have led to significant improvements in survival and quality of life. However, some of these treatments may lead to weakening of patient's bones with risk of fracture and it is therefore important to monitor patients' bone health and provide bone protection where needed. This paper provides specific guidance to clinical teams, based on the most recent research evidence, to ensure optimal bone health in their patients.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0140.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.011

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations73
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of bone oncologySame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207