The pattern of prostate cancer local recurrence after radiation and salvage cryoablation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: We assessed the pattern of local recurrence after salvagecryoablation of the prostate, and the impact of local recurrence onintermediate-term outcome.Methods: One hundred twenty-two patients who underwentsalvage cryoablation were studied after a mean follow-up of 56months. Serial prostate biopsy was carried out after cryoablation.The histopathology of prostate biopsies before and after cryoablationwere compared. The prognostic value of post-cryoablationbiopsy was assessed with the Cox regression method.Results: 23.1% of patients had a positive biopsy for prostate cancerfollowing salvage cryoablation. Most cancer recurrences occurredin the apex (51.5%), base (21.2%) and seminal vesicles (18.2%).The presence of cancer at the base of the prostate was found tobe a prognostic factor for eventual biochemical failure. Overall5-year biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) was 28%, howeverpatients with cancer at the base of the prostate had a 5-yearbDFS of 0%.Conclusion: Cancer recurrences occurred in areas where aggressivefreezing was avoided as it might result in serious problems (e.g.,urethro-rectal fistula and incontinence). Post-cryoablation biopsiesand the location of persistent disease are of prognostic value.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".