Radiation-induced Fistulas in Patients With Prior Pelvic Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To systematically aggregate and summarize existing data on fistula prevalence among patients with a history of pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Materials and Methods We queried PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science on October 7, 2020 for peer-reviewed publications pertaining to radiation-induced fistulas in the pelvis. For meta-analysis, we used the random-effects model. We used the I2 statistic to quantify heterogeneity and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess risk of bias. Results Our final meta-analysis included 6 cohort studies with a total of 7665 patients exposed to pelvic radiotherapy between 1967 and 2013. Median follow-up time was 35.5 months (IQR 33.5-57.5). Pooled prevalence of radiation-induced fistula across all 6 cohort studies was 0.2% (95% CI: 0.1-0.4, I2 = 0.000%, P < .608). In subgroup analysis, we did not detect significant heterogeneity in fistula prevalence in patients who were re-irradiated (0.3%, 95% CI: 0.1-0.4; P = .762) or patients on concurrent chemotherapy (0.4%, 95% CI: -0.3 -1.2; P = .664) compared to those receiving their first course of radiotherapy alone. No randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria due to ambiguous and inconsistent reporting language for fistula occurrence. Conclusion There is limited published literature reporting fistula as an adverse event of prostate cancer radiotherapy, especially in the medium and long-term period. Patients undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer appear at low short-term risk for developing fistulas. Adverse event reporting in randomized controlled trials merits greater granularity where fistulas should be reported with specificity rather than aggregating into broad categories of genitourinary or gastrointestinal adverse events.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".