MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3104105191 · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.11.010

Prostate Bed Delineation Guidelines for Postoperative Radiation Therapy: On Behalf Of The Francophone Group of Urological Radiation Therapy

2020· article· en· W3104105191 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie Robin, M. Jolicoeur, Samuel Palumbo, Thomas Zilli, G. Créhange, O. De Hertogh, T. Derashodian, Paul Sargos, Carl Salembier, S. Supiot, Corina Udrescu, O. Chapet

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-AppalachesCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des LaurentidesHôpital Charles-Le Moyne
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstatectomyGuidelineRadiation therapyProstate cancerFrenchProstateMedical physicsSurgeryInternal medicineCancerPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Prostate bed (PB) irradiation is considered the standard postoperative treatment after radical prostatectomy (RP) for tumors with high-risk features or persistent prostate-specific antigen, or for salvage treatment in case of biological relapse. Four consensus guidelines have been published to standardize practices and reduce the interobserver variability in PB delineation but with discordant recommendations. To improve the reproducibility in the PB delineation, the Francophone Group of Urological Radiotherapy (Groupe Francophone de Radiothérapie Urologique [GFRU]) worked to propose a new and more reproducible consensus guideline for PB clinical target volume (CTV) definition. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 4-step procedure was used. First, a group of 10 GFRU prostate experts evaluated the 4 existing delineation guidelines for postoperative radiation therapy (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer; the Faculty of Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group; the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; and the Princess Margaret Hospital) to identify divergent issues. Second, data sets of 50 magnetic resonance imaging studies (25 after RP and 25 with an intact prostate gland) were analyzed to identify the relevant anatomic boundaries of the PB. Third, a literature review of surgical, anatomic, histologic, and imaging data was performed to identify the relevant PB boundaries. Fourth, a final consensus on PB CTV definition was reached among experts. RESULTS: Definitive limits of the PB CTV delineation were defined using easily visible landmarks on computed tomography scans (CT). The purpose was to ensure a better reproducibility of PB definition for any radiation oncologist even without experience in postoperative radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: New recommendations for PB delineation based on simple anatomic boundaries and available as a CT image atlas are proposed by the GFRU. Improvement in uniformity in PB CTV definition and treatment homogeneity in the context of clinical trials are expected.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.310 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations54
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*PhysicsSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207