Spine metastasis in patients with prostate cancer: Survival prognosis assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients presenting spine metastasis (SpM) from prostate cancer (PC) form a heterogeneous population, through this study, we aimed to clarify and update their prognostic assessment. METHODS: The patient data used in this study was obtained from a French national multicenter database of patients treated for PC with SpM between 2014 and 2017. A total of 72 patients and 365 SpM cases were diagnosed. RESULTS: The median overall survival time for all patients following the event of SpM was 28.8 months. First, we identified three significant survival prognostic factors of PC patients with SpM: good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/World Health Organization personnel status (Status 0 hazard ratio [HR]: 0.031, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.008-0.127; p < .0001) or (Status 1 HR: 0.163, 95% CI: 0.068-0.393; p < .0001) and SpM radiotherapy (HR: 2.923, 95% CI: 1.059-8.069; p < .0001). Secondly, the presence of osteolytic lesions of the spine (vs. osteoblastic) was found to represent an independent prognosis factor for longer survival [HR: 0.424, 95% CI: 0.216-0.830; p = .01]. Other factors including the number of SpM, surgery, extraspinal metastasis, synchrone metastasis, metastasis-free survival, and SpM recurrence were not identified as being prognostically relevant to the survival of patients with PC. CONCLUSION: Survival and our ability to estimate it in patients presenting PC with SpM have improved significantly. Therefore, we advocate the relevance of updating SpM prognostic scoring algorithms by incorporating data regarding the timeline of PC as well as the presence of osteolytic SpM to conceive treatments that are adapted to each patient.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".