Biochemical failure-rate and preservation of erectile function after prostate seed brachytherapy in early-onset prostate cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To analyze biochemical failure-free survival and erectile dysfunction (ED) in younger men treated with prostate seed brachytherapy (PB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Included were patients ≤ 55 years treated with PB. Erectile function at baseline and after treatment were assessed using the physician-reported CTCAE version 4.0. Biochemical failure (BF) was defined according to the Phoenix Consensus definition (PSA nadir + 2 ng/mL). The log-rank test (Kaplan-Meier method) and cox-regression analysis was used to calculate BF-free survival. RESULTS: Between July 2005 and November 2020, a total of 137 patients ≤ 55 years (range 44-55 years old) were treated with PB. Median follow up was 72 months. Twenty percent had Gleason 3+4 disease and 6% a PSA >10 ng/mL. Median prostate volume was 34 cc. Actuarial biochemical failure free survival at 5, 7, and 10 years, were 98%, 95% and 89%, respectively. Five patients received local salvage treatment. On multivariate analysis, CAPRA-score (HR 4.46, 95%CI 1.76-11.33, p = 0.002) and the dosimetric measure D90 > 130 Gy (p = 0.03) were predictive of BF. Five deaths occurred in our cohort, two due to cardiovascular reasons and three due to another malignancy. At baseline, all patients were able to have erections with or without medication. At 5 years and 7 years after PB, 80% and 64% of patients had little or no ED (erections without the need for medication) respectively. CONCLUSION: In young-onset patients treated with PB, failure rates are similar to their older counterparts. Sexual function decreases with time, even in patients with good sexual function.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".