MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Daily symptom monitoring commonly leads to treatment modification in older adults receiving treatment for metastatic prostate cancer (mPC).

2022· article· en· W4213064176 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Henriette Breunis, Abirami Sudharshan, Urban Emmenegger, Aaron R. Hansen, Enrique Soto‐Pérez‐de‐Celis, Antonio Finelli, George Tomlinson, Padraig Warde, Monika K. Krzyzanowska, Andrew Matthew, Hance Clarke, Daniel Santa Mina, Martine Puts, Shabbir M.H. Alibhai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
FundersProstate Cancer Canada
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerDocetaxelInternal medicineProspective cohort studyQuality of life (healthcare)Androgen deprivation therapyCancerCohortPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

82 Background: Treatment options for older adults with mPC expanded significantly in recent years but commonly include chemotherapy with Docetaxel (Chemo), androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapies (ARAT), and Radium-223 (Ra-223). Symptom burden associated with Chemo, ARAT, and Ra-223 is frequently observed and often leads to treatment modification, especially in older men. The objective of this study is to explore how often, and which moderate to severe symptoms during treatment for mPC and triggered follow-up, lead to treatment delay and/or dose reduction. Methods: Men aged 65+ with mPC starting standard dose (n=24) or reduced dose (n=1) Chemo, standard dose (n=41) or reduced dose (n=1) ARATs, or Ra223 (n=12) from two tertiary cancer centres in Toronto, Canada, were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Participants self-reported symptoms daily using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) for 3-4 weeks either through a web-based interface or phone calls. ESAS scores of >4 were followed by ‘triggered’ detailed questionnaires. The oncology care team was informed of reportable events based on scores of triggered questionnaires and patients were advised to call their care team. Clinical and treatment data were abstracted from electronic patient records and descriptive analysis was used. Results: 52/79 participants (66%) reported 345 moderate to severe symptoms that merited triggered questionnaires (table) with an adherence of 83%. Tiredness (n=74), appetite (n=49), insomnia (n=49), and pain (n=48) were the most frequently reported symptoms. 28 patients reported high scores on triggered questionnaires that led to informing the oncology care team and 79% of these patients were contacted by the care team, or an appointment with the Most Responsible Physician was scheduled. Moderate to severe symptom reporting resulted in treatment modification for 9 patients, Chemo (n=5), ARAT (n=3), and Ra-223 (n=1). Conclusions: Daily monitoring identified clinically relevant symptoms and actionable concerns. Informing care teams of reportable adverse events resulted in contacting patients and ultimately in treatment modification in a considerable number of patients. [Table: see text]

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207