MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Understanding variation in treatment intensification for de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC): A population-based cohort study.

2024· article· en· W4391303738 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christopher J.D. Wallis, Raj Satkunasivam, David‐Dan Nguyen, Khatereh Aminoltejari, Amanda Hird, Soumyajit Roy, Scott C. Morgan, Shawn Malone, Bobby Shayegan, Rodney H. Breau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerOncologyCohortInternal medicinePopulationCancerGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

69 Background: Treatment intensification using androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSIs) or chemotherapy is guideline-recommended for patients with mCSPC based on improved survival and preserved quality of life. However, numerous studies across jurisdictions have shown relatively limited uptake, with most patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) monotherapy. Therefore, we sought to understand patient, physician, and tumor characteristics associated with treatment intensification. Methods: This population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada included older men (age ≥66 years) diagnosed with de novo mCSPC between Jan 2014 and Nov 2021 for whom the ADT-prescribing physician could be identified (>99.5% of all mCSPC patients). We used hierarchical regression modelling to assess the association (presented as odds ratio, OR) between patient sociodemographic characteristics and comorbidities, tumor characteristics, and physician characteristics with receipt of intensified treatment for mCSPC, defined as receipt of an ARSI, docetaxel, or both within 6mo. We used Darlington’s method to assess the relative importance of these predictors (presented as standardized regression coefficients, SRC). Results: Among 4450 eligible older men newly diagnosed with de novo mCSPC, 18.8% received treatment intensification, with rates increasing from 6.3% in 2014 to 31.9% by 2021. In multivariable modeling, patient age was the most influential variable, with older patients significantly less likely to receive treatment intensification (SRC -43.8, OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.90-0.92). Socioeconomic status (SRC -12.2; OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33-0.88 for quintile 1 vs 5) and a history of stroke (SRC -11.5, OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09-0.86), but no other patient factors including comorbidity, were significantly associated with intensification. Patients prescribed ADT for mCSPC by radiation oncologists were less likely to receive intensification (SRC -16.5; OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23-0.95) compared to other providers without significant differences between patients treated by urologists, medical oncologists, or other physicians. No other physician-level characteristic (age, sex, years in practice, or annual volume of prostate cancer patients) was associated with treatment intensification. More contemporary year of diagnosis was also strongly predictive (mean SRC 31.2) of intensification. We noted significant geographic variation (mean SRC 10.2; p<0.0001), that could not be explained by rurality (p=0.08) and persisted after adjustment for socioeconomic status and patient characteristics. Conclusions: Patient, disease, and physician characteristics contribute to variation in treatment intensification for mCSPC. These data may allow focused intervention to improve guideline-concordant care for patients with mCSPC.

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)0.005
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 score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.371
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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