Interpreting Testosterone and Concomitant Prostate Specific Antigen Values during Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Recurrent Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our objective was therefore to evaluate the relation between testosterone and concomitant prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels during ADT on clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients from the continuous androgen deprivation arm of the PR.7 trial of intermittent ADT for biochemically recurrent prostate cancer following radiotherapy were included. Statistical analyses evaluated the prognostic importance of testosterone levels during ADT relative to concomitant PSA levels. We similarly evaluated whether the number of testosterone breakthroughs >1.7 nmol/l predicted the time to castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), cancer specific survival (CSS) or overall survival (OS) with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Overall, the prognostic importance of testosterone on outcomes was eclipsed by the prognostic value of concomitant PSA values. The occurrence of testosterone values >0.7 nmol/l in the first year of therapy was associated with subsequent rises >1.7 nmol/l, but the number of testosterone breakthroughs per patient had no relationship to the risk of CRPC, CSS or OS. A time-dependent adjusted analysis indicated as expected that PSA values were prognostic, but there was no association of relative cumulative testosterone exposure with outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale trial with long followup, breakthrough testosterone was unrelated to time to CRPC, CSS or OS. Castrate testosterone values during ADT for recurrent prostate cancer provides prognostic information that must be considered alongside the time since ADT initiation and concomitant PSA values.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".