The role of radiotherapy in oligometastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this article is to review the role of radiotherapy in the management of oligometastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC). RECENT FINDINGS: The M1|RT STAMPEDE trial showed a survival advantage to prostate radiotherapy in newly diagnosed oligometastatic HSPC. The combination of prostate radiotherapy with systemic treatment is now the recommended standard of care. Metastases-directed therapy (MDT) with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in the STOMP and ORIOLE trial reported excellent local control and a survival advantage in metachronous oligometastatic HSPC. Results were consistent with prostate cancer outcomes in the SABR-COMET trial and the NHS England Commissioning through Evaluation scheme (CtE). SABR in synchronous oligometastatic HSPC will be evaluated in a new comparison within the STAMPEDE trial. Current definition of oligometastatic HSPC is based on the number of metastatic lesions on conventional imaging (CT/MRI and Isotope bone scan). Novel imaging, such as PSMA PET/CT provide superior accuracy to conventional imaging. However, limited data exists on the role of novel imaging in determining subsequent clinical outcomes. SUMMARY: Prostate radiotherapy improves survival and is standard of care with systemic treatment in newly diagnosed oligometastatic HSPC. The role of SABR in newly diagnosed oligometastatic HSPC is yet to be determined.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".