MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293109451 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.971344

MRI-guided focal or integrated boost high dose rate brachytherapy for recurrent prostate cancer

2022· article· en· W4293109451 on OpenAlexafffund
Cynthia Ménard, Inmaculada Navarro-Domenech, Lisa Joseph, Maroie Barkati, Alejandro Berlín, Guila Delouya, Daniel Taussky, Marie-Claude Beauchemin, Benedicte Nicolas, Samuel Kadoury, Alexandra Rink, Srinivas Raman, Aravindhan Sundaramurthy, Robert Weersink, Dominic Béliveau‐Nadeau, Joelle Helou, Peter Chung

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersDOD Prostate Cancer Research ProgramNational Institutes of HealthVarian Medical SystemsAssociation of Canadian Universities for Research in AstronomyU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsProstate cancerBrachytherapyMedicineRadiologyMagnetic resonance imagingProstateOncologyRadiation therapyNuclear medicineCancerMedical physicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and purpose: Locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy merits an effective salvage strategy that mitigates the risk of adverse events. We report outcomes of a cohort enrolled across two institutions investigating MRI-guided tumor-targeted salvage high dose rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT). Materials and methods: Analysis of a prospective cohort of 88 patients treated across two institutions with MRI-guided salvage HDR-BT to visible local recurrence after radiotherapy (RT). Tumor target dose ranged from 22-26 Gy, using either an integrated boost (ibBT) or focal technique (fBT), delivered in two implants over a median of 7 days. Outcome metrics included cancer control and toxicity (CTCAE). Quality of life (QoL-EPIC) was analyzed in a subset. Results: At a median follow-up of 35 months (6 -134), 3 and 5-year failure-free survival (FFS) outcomes were 67% and 49%, respectively. At 5 years, fBT was associated with a 17% cumulative incidence of local failure (LF) outside the GTV (vs. 7.8% ibBT, p=0.14), while LF within the GTV occurred in 13% (vs. 16% ibBT, p=0.81). Predictors of LF outside fBT volumes included pre-salvage PSA>7 ng/mL (p=0.03) and interval since RT less than 5 years (p=0.04). No attributable grade 3 events occurred, and ibBT was associated with a higher rate of grade 2 toxicity (p<0.001), and trend towards a larger reduction in QoL sexual domain score (p=0.07), compared to fBT. Conclusion: A tumor-targeted HDR-BT salvage approach achieved favorable cancer control outcomes. While a fBT was associated with less toxicity, it may be best suited to a subgroup with lower PSA at later recurrence. Tumor targeted dose escalation may be warranted.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207