Quality of Life Longitudinal Evaluation in Prostate Cancer Patients from Radiotherapy Start to 5 Years after IMRT-IGRT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to study the evolution of quality of life (QoL) in the first 5 years following Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer (PCa) and to determine possible associations with clinical/treatment data. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients were enrolled in a prospective multicentre observational trial in 2010-2014 and treated with conventional (74-80 Gy, 1.8-2 Gy/fr) or moderately hypofractionated IMRT (65-75.2 Gy, 2.2-2.7 Gy/fr). QoL was evaluated by means of EORTC QLQ-C30 at baseline, at radiation therapy (RT) end, and every 6 months up to 5 years after IMRT end. Fourteen QoL dimensions were investigated separately. The longitudinal evaluation of QoL was analysed by means of Analysis of variances (ANOVA) for multiple measures. RESULTS: A total of 391 patients with complete sets of questionnaires across 5 years were available. The longitudinal analysis showed a trend toward the significant worsening of QoL at RT end for global health, physical and role functioning, fatigue, appetite loss, diarrhoea, and pain. QoL worsening was recovered within 6 months from RT end, with the only exception being physical functioning. Based on ANOVA, the most impaired time point was RT end. QoL dimension analysis at this time indicated that acute Grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity significantly impacted global health, physical and role functioning, fatigue, appetite loss, diarrhoea, and pain. Acute Grade ≥ 2 genitourinary (GU) toxicity resulted in lower role functioning and higher pain. Prophylactic lymph-nodal irradiation (WPRT) resulted in significantly lower QoL for global health, fatigue, appetite loss, and diarrhoea; lower pain with the use of neoadjuvant/concomitant hormonal therapy; and lower fatigue with the use of an anti-androgen. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective, longitudinal, observational study, high radiation IMRT doses delivered for PCa led to a temporary worsening of QoL, which tended to be completely resolved at six months. Such transient worsening was mostly associated with acute GI/GU toxicity, WPRT, and higher prescription doses.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".