MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119214553 · doi:10.1097/ju.0000000000001601

Systematic Review of Time to Definitive Treatment for Intermediate Risk and High Risk Prostate Cancer: Are Delays Associated with Worse Outcomes?

2021· review· en· W3119214553 on OpenAlexaff
David‐Dan Nguyen, Lorine Haeuser, Marco Paciotti, Chanan Reitblat, Jacqueline Cellini, Stuart R. Lipsitz, Adam S. Kibel, Atish D. Choudhury, Eugene B. Cone, Quoc‐Dien Trinh

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical schoolMedicinePublic healthGerontologyFamily medicineMedical educationNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer is most commonly an indolent disease, especially when detected at a localized stage. Unlike other tumors that may benefit from timely receipt of definitive therapy, it is generally accepted that treatment delays for localized prostate cancer are acceptable, especially for low risk prostate cancer. Since treatment delay for intermediate risk and high risk disease is more controversial, we sought to determine if delays for these disease states negatively impacted oncological outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature with searches of Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to June 30, 2020. General study characteristics as well as study population and delay information were collected. The outcomes of interest extracted included biochemical recurrence, pathological features (positive surgical margins, upgrading, extracapsular extension, and other pathological features), cancer specific survival and overall survival. RESULTS: After identifying 1,793 unique references, 24 manuscripts met criteria for data extraction, 15 of which were published after 2013. Based on our review, delays up to 3 months are safe for all localized prostate cancer and are not associated with worse oncological outcomes. Some studies identified worse oncological outcomes as a result of delays beyond 6 to 9 months. However, these studies are counterbalanced by others finding no statistically significant association with delays up to 12 months. Studies that did find worse outcomes as a result of delays identified a higher risk of biochemical recurrence and worse pathological outcomes but not worse cancer specific or overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Definitive treatment for intermediate risk and high risk prostate cancer can be delayed up to 3 months without any oncological consequences. Some evidence suggests that there is a higher risk of biochemical recurrence and worse pathological outcomes associated with delays beyond 6 to 9 months. To date, there are no reports of worse cancer specific survival or overall survival as a result of delayed treatment for intermediate risk and high risk prostate cancer.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.010
Bibliometrics0.0110.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations34
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207