MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393947130 · doi:10.1016/j.euo.2024.03.007

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Impact of Local Therapies on Local Event Suppression in Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer

2024· review· en· W4393947130 on OpenAlexaff
Ichiro Tsuboi, Akihiro Matsukawa, Mehdi Kardoust Parizi, Jakob Klemm, Stefano Mancon, Sever Chiujdea, Tamás Fazekas, Marcin Miszczyk, Ekaterina Laukhtina, Tatsushi Kawada, Satoshi Katayama, Takehiro Iwata, Kensuke Bekku, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Koichiro Wada, Morgan Rouprêt, Motoo Araki, Shahrokh F. Shariat

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology Oncology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerOncologyInternal medicineAndrogen deprivation therapyDocetaxelSystemic therapyRandomized controlled trialIncidence (geometry)Context (archaeology)Meta-analysisHormone therapyCancerBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: It remains unclear to what extent the therapy of the primary local tumor, such as radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiation therapy (RT), improves overall survival in patients with low-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). However, data suggest a benefit of these therapies in preventing local events secondary to local tumor progression. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of adding local therapy (RP or RT) to systemic therapies, including androgen deprivation therapy, docetaxel, and/or androgen receptor axis-targeted agents, in preventing local events in mHSPC patients compared with systemic therapy alone (ie, without RT of the prostate or RP). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Three databases and meeting abstracts were queried in November 2023 for studies analyzing mHSPC patients treated with local therapy. The primary outcome of interest was the prevention of overall local events (urinary tract infection, urinary tract obstruction, and gross hematuria) due to local disease progression. Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the differential outcomes according to the type of local therapy (RP or RT). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, six studies, comprising two randomized controlled trials, were included for a systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall incidence of local events was significantly lower in the local treatment plus systemic therapy group than in the systemic therapy only groups (relative risk [RR]: 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28-0.88, p = 0.016). RP significantly reduced the incidence of overall local events (RR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.11-0.52) and that of local events requiring surgical intervention (RR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03-0.25). Although there was no statistically significant difference between the RT plus systemic therapy and systemic therapy only groups in terms of overall local events, the incidence of local events requiring surgical intervention was significantly lower in the RT plus systemic therapy group (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.49-0.99); local events requiring surgical intervention of the upper urinary tract was significantly lower in local treatment groups (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.37-0.98, p = 0.04). However, a subgroup analysis revealed that neither RP nor RT significantly impacted the prevention of local events requiring surgical intervention of the upper urinary tract. CONCLUSIONS: In some patients with mHSPC, RP or RT of primary tumor seems to reduce the incidence of local progression and events requiring surgical intervention. Identifying which patients are most likely to benefit from local therapy, and at what time point (eg, after response of metastases), will be necessary to set up a study assessing the risk, benefits, and alternatives to therapy of the primary tumor in the mHSPC setting. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our study suggests that local therapy of the prostate, such as radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy, in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer can prevent local events, such as urinary obstruction and gross hematuria.

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)0.001
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: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Urology OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207