MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394370738 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.21359444

The current role of local treatment in metastatic prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· dataset· en· W4394370738 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Willy Baccaglini, Antônio Flávio Silva Rodrigues, Saulo Borborema Teles, Nicolle M. Christofe, Felipe Placco Araújo Glina, Gustavo Caserta Lemos, Rafael Sanchez‐Salas, Rubén Olivares, Ariê Carneiro

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2022
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerMeta-analysisOncologyCurrent (fluid)MedicineCancerInternal medicineGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to evaluate the current role of local treatment in prostate cancer with a low metastatic burden (or oligometastatic) in relation to survival and safety. We performed a meta-analysis of studies published in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases until December 2021. Studies comparing local and nonlocal treatment in patients with metastatic prostate cancer were included. The risk of bias within studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa and Cochrane risk of bias tool. Oligo-metastasis was defined as low-volume metastasis with up to five lesions. The local treatment used was radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy associated with systemic therapy (i.e., androgen deprivation therapy ± abiraterone, docetaxel, enzalutamide, or apalutamide). The endpoints evaluated were overall survival, cancer-specific survival, failure-free survival, and complication rates. Thirteen studies including 46,541 patients were included. The 5-year overall survival (16.0% vs. 6.5%, respectively; odds ratio (OR) 2.74; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.18, 3.44; I2 = 0%; p < .00001) and 3-year cancer-specific survival (48.2% vs. 26.3%, respectively; OR 1.87; 95% CI: 1.44, 2.44; I2 = 0%; p < .00001) were higher in the local treatment group than that of the nonlocal treatment group. In addition, failure-free survival at 3 years was higher in the local treatment group than that of the nonlocal treatment group (40.5% vs. 28.4%, respectively; OR 1.72; 95% CI, 1.38, 2.14; I2 = 0%; p < .00001). The low complication rate of Clavien–Dindo grade ≥3 indicated that local treatment is feasible and safe in this setting. Recent data have shown that local treatment combined with systematic therapy, might improve the overall, cancer-specific, and failure-free survivals of patients diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer. Furthermore, local treatment is both feasible and safe. Further studies evaluating the quality of life of these patients are needed.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.041
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→