The Role of Pelvic Exenteration in the Management of Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Locally advanced prostate cancer poses a clinical challenge for physicians. Despite the established role of radiotherapy and androgen-deprivation therapy in these cases, some patients with locally advanced disease experience recurrent disease or persistent disease with debilitating local symptoms, such as intractable pain and urinary symptoms. In this narrative review, we sought to evaluate the role of exenterative surgery in the management of locally advanced prostate cancer. From our search, we found that total pelvic exenteration or cystoprostatectomy represents a viable therapeutic modality to manage prostate cancer directly invading the bladder, lower urinary tract symptoms, debilitating pain caused by locally advanced disease, and as salvage treatment after failure of primary treatment among other applications. Reports on minimally invasive pelvic exenteration for prostate cancer were also retrieved, as this represents a feasible and effective treatment option for experienced clinicians. Pelvic exenteration may be an effective tool for the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer in the surgeon’s armamentarium; however, further studies are needed to establish its role in improving survival and overall patient outcomes
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".