PET/CT-Based Salvage Radiotherapy for Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: Impact on Treatment Management and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biochemical recurrence is a clinical situation experienced by 20 to 40% of prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP). Prostate bed (PB) radiation therapy (RT) remains the mainstay salvage treatment, although it remains non-curative for up to 30% of patients developing further recurrence. Positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET/CT) using prostate cancer-targeting radiotracers has emerged in the last decade as a new-generation imaging technique characterized by a better restaging accuracy compared to conventional imaging. By adapting targeting of recurrence sites and modulating treatment management, implementation in clinical practice of restaging PET/CT is challenging the established therapeutic standards born from randomized controlled trials. This article reviews the potential impact of restaging PET/CT on changes in the management of recurrent prostate cancer after RP. Based on PET/CT findings, it addresses potential adaptation of RT target volumes and doses, as well as use of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). However, the impact of such management changes on the oncological outcomes of PET/CT-based salvage RT strategies is as yet unknown.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".