MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Patterns of failure after radiotherapy (RT) in patients with prostate cancer re-staged with <sup>18</sup>F-DCFPyL PSMA-PET: A regional cohort analysis.

2023· article· en· W4324136173 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aruz Mesci, Sneha Mukherjee, Mohammad Gouran‐Savadkoohi, Anil Kapoor, Glenn Bauman, Himu Lukka, Ian S. Dayes, Kara Schnarr, Mira Goldberg, Kimmen Quan, Katherine Zukotynski, Theodoros Tsakiridis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsJuravinski Cancer CentreWestern UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerLymph nodeBiochemical recurrenceRadiation therapyStage (stratigraphy)CohortAdjuvantInternal medicineUrologyNuclear medicineCancerOncologyProstatectomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

45 Background: In Ontario, PSMA-PET is available to patients with prostate cancer who experience biochemical failure after definitive primary RT (pRT) or salvage/adjuvant RT (sRT) through a provincial registry study (PREP protocol). Here we review patterns of PSMA-PET-detected failure after primary (pRT) or salvage/adjuvant RT (sRT) radiotherapy (RT) in cohorts of PREP-registry patients from the Local Health Integration Network (LHIN) 4 region. Methods: With ethics approval, we retrospectively analyzed patients imaged with PSMA-PET in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, after biochemical failure, following pRT or sRT. Demographic, clinical and treatment parameters as well as PSMA-PET results were collected. Results: Between April 2019 and December 2021, 104 pRT and 91 sRT patients were imaged with 18F-DCFPyL PSMA-PET. Median PSA (ng/mL) before PSMA-PET for the two groups was 5.0 (IQR:3.1-8.9) and 1.3 (IQR:0.6-3.4). The percentages of Prostate or Prostatic bed RT alone (Pr-RT) and Pr + pelvic Lymph Node RT (Pr+LN-RT) RT treatments, were Pr-RT:76% vs Pr+LN-RT:24% for the pRT group and Pr-RT:49.4% vs Pr+LN-RT:50.6% for the sRT group, respectively. Rates of PSMA-PET detected local, pelvic lymph node and distant recurrence are shown. In the pRT group, increasing D’Amico risk category (low to high risk) was associated with lower risk for local and increased risk for pelvic and distant metastasis. Pelvic RT was associated with reduce risk for local recurrence in the pRT but not in the sRT group. Conclusions: In this cohort of patients PSMA-PET detected a considerable risk for local recurrence in patient treated with pRT. A high number of patients are detected with pelvic-only disease recurrence, but pelvic RT seems to be associated with reduction in this risk only in the pRT population. Studies with PSMA-PET at baseline, before pRT or sRT, may help discern better patients that would benefit from pelvic RT and systemic therapy.[Table: see text]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→