Salvage radiotherapy following <scp>HiFU</scp>: An institutional series and literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Algorithms for the treatment of prostate cancer (PrCa) rely on risk grouping, and those who fall into low (LR) and favourable intermediate risk (FIR) categories have multiple options for treatment. High-intensity focused ultrasound (HiFU) is a local treatment modality that uses ultrasound waves to ablate prostate cancer. In case of treatment failure, optimal salvage modality after HiFU remains unclear. METHODS: Here, we describe a retrospective review of our regional cancer database for men who underwent salvage radiotherapy after failure of HiFU treatment for prostate cancer. Oncologic and toxicity outcomes of the men identified in our database are discussed. RESULTS: We identified 14 men in our regional database who received salvage radiotherapy (70-74 Gy with or without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) after primary HiFU, in the period of 2009-2017. No cases of any grade 3 or higher toxicity were observed. In our cohort, 50% (7/14) of patients developed secondary biochemical failure at a median follow-up of 54 months post-radiotherapy, with a mean time to biochemical failure of 39 months. We compare our data to other available reports to date consisting mostly of small, non-randomized studies. Our biochemical control rates are noticeably lower compared with those reported by other studies but our length of follow-up is longer, compared with other studies. CONCLUSION: The available data to date suggest that salvage radiotherapy after HiFU failure is well-tolerated albeit with only modest efficacy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".