UPDATE – 2021 Canadian Urological Association (CUA)-Canadian Uro Oncology Group (CUOG) castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) guideline: What has changed since 2019?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I n 2019, the Canadian Urological Association (CUA)-Canadian Uro Oncology Group (CUOG) castrationresistant prostate cancer guideline was published to highlight the evolving landscape in castration-resistant disease, especially with the advent of therapeutic options for patients with high-risk, non-metastatic CRPC.At the time of publication, apalutamide and enzalutamide had received Health Canada approval and were included in the 2019 guideline.The results of darolutamide studies had just been reported, briefly summarized in the text, but darolutamide not officially recommended for use, given the lack of Health Canada approval at that time.Since then, darolutamide has been approved in Canada and important new data has been published for all three agents, which are now part of the 2021 updated guideline.For metastatic CRPC, the poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib has also recently been approved in Canada and the target population is described in the new guideline.Lastly, regarding the use of radium-223, additional updated safety information has been included in the 2021 guideline.This brief review summarizes some the changes, the reasons that justify them, as well as some thoughts as to the importance of ensuring optimal care for patients with CRPC.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.012 |
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".