Comparison of salvage radical prostatectomy vs. salvage ablation therapy for biopsy-proven radio-recurrent localized prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Radiation therapy for prostate cancer is associated with a 15-20% five-year recurrence rate. Patients with recurrence in the prostate only are candidates for salvage local therapies; however, there is no consensus on modality. This study uses registries at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and University of Western Ontario (UWO) to compare the oncologic outcomes of salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP) and salvage ablation (SA). METHODS: A total of 444 patients were available for analysis. Due to intergroup differences, propensity score methodology was used and identified 378 patients with more comparable pre-salvage prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Gleason score, and primary radiation treatment. Patients underwent SRP at MSKCC and SA at UWO. RESULTS: Of the 378 patients, 48 died of disease, with a 6.0-year median (interquartile range [IQR] 3.0, 9.7) followup among survivors; 88 developed metastases, with a median 4.6-year (IQR 2.3, 7.9) followup among metastasis-free survivors. There was a non-significantly higher rate of cancer-specific (hazard ratio [HR ] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51, 2.06, p=0.9) and improved metastasis-free survival (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44, 1.13, p=0.15) among patients undergoing SA compared to patients undergoing SRP. There were 143 patients who received hormonal therapy, with higher rates of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in SA (HR 1.42, 95% CI 0.97, 2.08, p=0.068), although this did not meet conventional levels of significance. CONCLUSIONS: This propensity score analysis of salvage therapy for radio-recurrent prostate cancer identified no statistically significant differences in oncologic outcome between SRP and SA; however, there was evidence of a lower risk of ADT in the cohort undergoing SRP. Given they are both potentially curative therapies, these treatments are viable options for men with clinically localized, radio-recurrent prostate cancer rather than ADT alone. Future research may further elucidate subpopulations that may be more amenable to either SRP or SA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".