MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Long-term treatment outcomes from the International Multi-Institutional Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for High-Risk Localized Carcinoma of the Prostate (SHARP) Consortium.

2024· article· en· W4391302681 on OpenAlexaff
Luca Valle, Tahmineh Romero, Tommy Jiang, Ritchell van Dams, Donald B. Fuller, Andrew Loblaw, Thomas Kennedy, Sean P. Collins, Vaibhav Sharma, Simeng Suy, Vedang Murthy, Indranil Mallick, Nicholas G. Nickols, Michael L. Steinberg, Amar U. Kishan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersBristol-Myers Squibb Foundation
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerAndrogen deprivation therapyRadiation therapyCohortOncologyProstateInternal medicineRadiosurgeryProspective cohort studyRandomized controlled trialClinical trialCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

323 Background: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) leverages advanced image-guided radiotherapy techniques to deliver high doses of radiation over the course of 5 or fewer treatments. High-risk localized prostate cancer has been historically treated with more protracted conventional radiotherapeutic techniques, though use of SBRT is now supported in this setting by subgroup analyses of randomized trials as well as medium-term prospective data from phase II trials. However, most patients with high-risk prostate cancer continue to receive extended treatment courses in part due to trepidation surrounding the long-term outcomes of SBRT in high-risk disease. We sought to report long-term efficacy and toxicity outcomes from the SHARP consortium for men with high-risk prostate cancer treated with SBRT. Methods: Individual patient data from men prospectively treated on five clinical trials evaluating SBRT for high-risk prostate cancer across five institutions were pooled. Analysis was limited to patients with more than 24 months of follow-up. Adjusted 5-year overall survival (OS) was calculated for the entire cohort of high-risk patients. Kaplan-Meier analyses estimated 5-year biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS) and 5-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) stratified by receipt of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Multivariate analysis quantified the benefit of adding ADT to SBRT, adjusting for patient age, iPSA, Gleason Score, T category, ADT use, and nodal radiation. Crude rates of CTCAE grade 3 or greater GI or GU toxicity were calculated. Results: Data from 373 prospectively treated patients were pooled for analysis. Median follow-up time was 60.2 months. 282 (75.6%) patients received ADT for a median duration of 9 months. Adjusted 5-year overall survival was 87.9% (95% CI 84.2%-91.6%). Estimated 5-year BCRFS for men who received ADT was 81.4% (95% CI 76.2% - 86.5%) compared to 77.2% (95% CI 66.9% -87.6%) for men who did not (logrank p=0.04). Estimated 5-year DMFS was 92.4% (95% CI 89.1%-95.8%) for men who received ADT versus 93.6% (95% CI 87.5%-99.8%) for men who did not (logrank p=0.62). On MVA, adjusted HR for BCRFS with use of ADT compared to no ADT was 0.7 (p=0.017). Crude incidence rate of late grade 3 or greater genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity was 4.1%. Conclusions: The safety and efficacy profile of SBRT for high-risk prostate cancer remains favorable at long-term follow-up. ADT of medium duration improves BCRFS in men with high-risk prostate cancer but did not reduce the incidence of metastatic failure at a median of 60 months. SBRT and ADT should be routinely integrated into shared decision-making for men with high-risk prostate cancer pursuing definitive radiotherapeutic treatment.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→