MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Impact of lymph node yield at prostatectomy on outcomes in NRG/RTOG 9601.

2022· article· en· W4213177806 on OpenAlexaff
Emily Chan, Stephanie L. Pugh, Jeff Simko, Felix Y. Feng, William U. Shipley, Himanshu Lukka, Jean-Paul Bahary, Thomas M. Pisansky, Kenneth L. Zeitzer, C.A. Lawton, Jason A. Efstathiou, Seth A. Rosenthal, Alexander G. Balogh, R.D. Lovett, Anthony Wong, Robert T. Dess, Scott McGinnis, Michael Kuettel, Lyudmila DeMora, Howard M. Sandler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstatectomyBicalutamideProstate cancerUrologyLymph nodeClinical endpointProstate-specific antigenOncologyRadiation therapyCohortBiochemical recurrenceInternal medicineSurgeryClinical trialCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

265 Background: A recent study ( Fossati et al, 2018) found that higher lymph node count at radical prostatectomy was associated with improved outcomes in patients treated with salvage radiation for elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after surgery. We sought to validate these results in NRG/RTOG 9601, a randomized controlled trial of men with pT2/T3 disease who underwent either radiation (RT) alone or RT+antiandrogen (bicalutamide) therapy for PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy from 1998-2003. Methods: We reviewed available pathology reports for all patients in NRG/RTOG 9601 to determine the nodal count at radical prostatectomy. Clinical data was as of 11/5/2015, same as the primary endpoint for the trial. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the effect of number of positive lymph nodes, treatment arm (RT alone or RT+bicalutamide), Gleason score, positive margins, and seminal vesicle invasion on the following endpoints: times to local and distant failure and overall and disease specific survival. Results: Out of the 760 patients originally eligible in the trial, 552 (73%, 276 in each arm) had complete data available. Median node count in the entire cohort was 6 (range 0-33, Q1-Q3 3-9). There were no significant differences between treatment arms in terms of patient demographic or clinical characteristics, including total lymph nodes removed in either arm (RT alone vs RT+bicalutamide median 5 vs 6, p = 0.11). There was no significant association between total lymph nodes and overall survival with both arms combined (HR = 1.00, 95% CI:0.97-1.03, p = 0.87) or in the individual arms alone (RT+Casodex: HR = 1.01, 95% CI:0.97-1.05, p = 0.65; RT+Placebo: HR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.94-1.03, p = 0.45). There was also no significant association between total lymph nodes and disease-specific survival with both arms combined (HR = 1.00, 95% CI:0.95-1.04, p = 0.84) and in the arms alone (RT+Casodex: HR = 1.00, 95% CI:0.95-1.05, p = 0.92; RT+Placebo: HR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.92-1.07, p = 0.86). In multivariable analysis performed on the two arms, Gleason score was the only feature associated with worse overall and disease-specific survival, seen only in the RT alone arm. Similar findings were seen when evaluating times to local and distant failure. Conclusions: Lymph node yield in NRG/RTOG 9601 did not show any association with adverse outcomes in the entire cohort, or in either treatment arm alone. The therapeutic benefit of an extensive lymph node dissection in this population remains uncertain. Clinical trial information: NCT00002874.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.360 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→