MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387949891 · doi:10.1002/pros.24638

Disease control outcomes of stereotactic body radiation therapy or moderate hypo‐fractionation for prostate cancer: Real‐world experience at two Canadian centers

2023· article· en· W4387949891 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hsin‐pei Hu, Gregory Anagnostopoulos, Mohammad Gouran‐Savadkoohi, Ian S. Dayes, Adrian Ishkanian, Abhirami Hallock, Himanshu Lukka, Kimmen Quan, Kara Schnarr, David Cuthbert, Mira Goldberg, Yi Meng Chang, Theodoros Tsakiridis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Prostate · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoNiagara Health SystemJuravinski Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerRadiation therapyDose fractionationStereotactic radiation therapyCohortOncologyInternal medicineRadiosurgeryCancerUrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Advantages of using stereotactic body radiation therapy to treat prostate cancer include short treatment times, decreased costs, and limited toxicity. Randomized trial outcomes comparing 5-fraction stereotactic body radiation therapy to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy or hypo-fractionated radiation therapy are pending. OBJECTIVE: We report the 10-year experience with 5-fraction stereotactic body radiation therapy and hypo-fractionated radiation therapy at two Canadian centers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy alone (35-40 Gy in 5 fractions) or hypo-fractionated radiation therapy alone (60-62 Gy in 20 fractions) in the period of July 2010 and June 2020. The biochemical relapse-free survival, PSA nadir, interval time to PSA nadir, time to biochemical recurrence (2 ng/ml above PSA nadir) and overall survival were reviewed. Outcomes between treatment groups were compared after propensity-matching by patient baseline characteristics. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess biochemical relapse-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: We identified 205 and 513 patients with low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer who were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy or hypo-fractionation, respectively. Intermediate-risk category composed 81% and 95% of the stereotactic body radiation therapy and hypo-fractionated radiation therapy cohorts, respectively. After a median follow up of 58.6 months for the stereotactic body radiation therapy cohort and 45.0 months for the hypo-fractionated cohort, biochemical relapse-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between treatment groups. The 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival rates were 92.1% and 93.6% and overall survival rates were 96.4% and 95.0% for the stereotactic body radiation therapy and hypo-fractionated cohorts, respectively, after propensity-matching. Stereotactic body radiation therapy resulted in a significantly lower PSA nadir (0.18 ng/ml) compared to hypo-fractionated radiation therapy (0.48 ng/ml) in patients with low-risk prostate cancer. Mean time to biochemical recurrence was not different between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Stereotactic body radiation therapy is an effective treatment option for low and intermediate-risk prostate cancer with encouraging biochemical relapse-free survival and overall survival rates comparable with hypo-fractionated radiation therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueThe ProstateSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207