Salvage Versus Adjuvant Radiation Therapy Following Radical Prostatectomy in Localised Prostate Cancer: A War Without a Winner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveTo review current literature regarding the efficacy of adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) and salvage radiation therapy (SRT) following radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with undetectable postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and high-risk features of prostate cancer (PCa) recurrence.MethodsSeven randomized controlled trials focused on the use of ART compared with either observation or SRT after RP that had been published in PubMed up to May 2022 were reviewed.ResultsThe use of ART following RP has been the treatment of choice over the past decade. Three RCTs comparing ART with early SRT show that SRT given as soon as biochemical recurrence (BCR) is detected is not inferior to ART while it offers the opportunity to avoid overtreatment and potential RT-related side effects. A meta-analysis summarizing the results from these trials supports these findings.ConclusionsEarly SRT may be suggested as the standard of care for patients with PCa and high-risk features for disease recurrence following RP. Nevertheless, further investigations are needed to identify those patients who will benefit from ART, particularly, in case of lymph node involvement. Moreover, some patients might avoid SRT despite reaching detectable postoperative serum PSA levels.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".