MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Neurocognitive function outcomes in NRG/RTOG 0534, the SPPORT trial.

2023· article· en· W4379341619 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey S. Wefel, Theodore Karrison, Alan Pollack, Alexander G. Balogh, Deborah Watkins Bruner, Leonard G. Gomella, Jeff M. Michalski, M.A. Hallman, George Rodrigues, Samantha A. Seaward, Michael Kuettel, Jerry L. Barker, Andrew S Camarata, Judith O. Hopkins, Michael D. Greenberg, James Jones, Howard M. Sandler, Wendy Seiferheld, Benjamin Movsas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsCancer Care Ontario
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineAndrogen deprivation therapyStatistical significanceProstate cancerNeurocognitiveQuality of life (healthcare)Internal medicineGerontologyCognitionCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

12022 Background: RTOG 0534 established the benefit of adding of short term androgen deprivation therapy (PBRT+STADT, Arm 2) to prostate bed salvage radiotherapy (PBRT, Arm 1), and demonstrated that elective pelvic lymph node irradiation combined with STADT (PBRT+STADT+PLNRT, Arm 3) results in further reductions in progression. Longitudinal monitoring of neurocognitive function (NCF) was conducted to evaluate the hypothesis that patients treated with STADT will demonstrate greater decline in NCF compared to patients receiving PBRT alone. Methods: Patients were administered the Clinical Trial Battery [Hopkins Verbal Learning Test – Revised (HVLT-R), Trail Making Test (TMT), and the Controlled Oral Word Association (COWA) test] by certified test administrators at baseline, and at 6 weeks (6w), 1 year (1yr), and 5 years after the end of RT (5yr). Raw NCF tests scores were converted to standardized z-scores adjusted for age and education when necessary. Analyses included z-score change and reliable change index (RCI) determined decline compared to baseline, and longitudinal mixed effect regression models using z-scores. To control for multiplicity, p < 0.025 is required for statistical significance. Results: Among the 1716 analyzable patients, 429 consented to NCF monitoring. There were no significant differences in sociodemographic or clinical characteristics between arms. NCF test completion was 82, 76, 63 and 30% at baseline, 6w, 1yr, and 5yr, respectively. RCI-based NCF deterioration was more frequent in Arm 3 compared to Arm 1 at 6 weeks on Delayed Recall (16% vs. 7%, p = 0.023). Patients in Arm 3 evidenced greater z-score decline compared to patients in Arm 1 at 6w on HVLT-R Total Recall [M(SD) Z-score∆ = -0.1(1.0) vs 0.2(0.9), (p = 0.020)] and Delayed Recall [M(SD) Z-score∆ = -0.4(1.5) vs 0.1(1.2), (p = 0.012)]. Mixed effects models identified statistically significant differences in z-scores between Arm 3 and 1 at 6w on Delayed Recall [-0.541 (SE 0.178, p = 0.002)]. A statistically significant difference was observed between Arm 2 and 1 at 6w on TMTB [1.498 (SE 0.626, p = 0.017) favoring Arm 2]. Between arm differences were not seen at any other time point, or on other NCF outcomes. Conclusions: Compared to patients treated with PBRT alone, patients treated with PBRT+STADT+PLNRT exhibited greater worsening in episodic verbal learning and memory processes at 6 weeks after the end of RT, while patients treated with PBRT+STADT exhibited greater improvement in processing speed. The absence of long term or progressive cognitive decline associated with STADT-containing regimens is promising but limited by substantial missing data at year 5. FUNDING This project was supported by grants 10CA180868 (NRG Oncology Operations), U10CA180822 (NRG Oncology SDMC), CTEP from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Clinical trial information: NCT00567580 .

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 designRandomized trial
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→