Outcomes of ablative therapy and radical treatment for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare biochemical recurrence, sexual potency and urinary continence outcomes of ablative therapy and radical treatment (radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy with androgen deprivation therapy). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA guidelines were performed. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed. Biochemical recurrence at three and five years; incontinence rate (patients who used one pad or more) and erectile dysfunction rate at 12 and 36 months (patients who did not have sufficient erection to achieve sexual intercourse) were evaluated. The Mantel-Haenszel method was applied to estimate the pooled risk difference (RD) in the individual studies for categorical variables. All results were presented as 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Random effects models were used regardless of the level of heterogeneity (I²). (PROSPERO CRD42022296998). RESULTS: Eight studies comprising 2,677 men with prostate cancer were included. There was no difference in biochemical recurrence between ablative and radical treatments. We observed the same biochemical recurrence between ablative therapy and radical treatment within five years (19.3% vs. 16.8%, respectively; RD 0.07; 95%CI=-0.05, 0.19; I2=68.2%; P=0.08) and continence rate at 12 months (9.2% vs. 31.8%, respectively; RD -0.13; 95%CI, -0.27, 0.01; I2=89%; P=0.32). When focal treatment was analyzed alone, two studies with 582 patients found higher erectile function at 12 months in the ablative therapy group than in the radical treatment (88.9% vs. 30.8%, respectively; RD -0.45; 95%CI -0.84, -0.05; I2=93%; P=0.03). CONCLUSION: Biochemical recurrence and urinary continence outcomes of ablative therapy and radical treatment were similar. Ablative therapy appears to have a high rate of sexual potency.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".