MP32-05 ESTIMATING THE REAL-WORLD INCIDENCE OF URETHRAL COMPLICATIONS AFTER PROSTATE CANCER TREATMENT: A POPULATION-BASED ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyReconstruction: Urethral Reconstruction (Including Stricture) II (MP32)1 May 2024MP32-05 ESTIMATING THE REAL-WORLD INCIDENCE OF URETHRAL COMPLICATIONS AFTER PROSTATE CANCER TREATMENT: A POPULATION-BASED ANALYSIS Carlos I. Calvo and Keith F. Rourke Carlos I. CalvoCarlos I. Calvo and Keith F. RourkeKeith F. Rourke View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008816.80828.35.05AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: There is a paucity of literature regarding the incidence of long-term urethral complications after prostate cancer treatment. Our objective is to assess the long-term incidence of urethral complications after different treatment modalities for prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: All men with a diagnosis of PC from 2002-2021 from the Alberta Cancer Registry were included. The Discharge Abstract Data & National Ambulatory Care Reporting System were searched for different treatment modalities and urologic diagnosis/procedures. Patients were allocated into 6 different groups, radical prostatectomy (RP), radiotherapy (RT), cryotherapy (Cryo), medical treatment/observation (MT/O), RP+RT or Cryo+RT. Urethral complication was defined as development of stenosis, fistula, or having a urethral/bladder neck procedure>30 days after treatment (excluding TURP, diagnostic procedures, anti-incontinence surgery). We compared the incidence of urethral complications among different groups. RESULTS: 47,387 patients with PC diagnosis were identified with a median age of 66 years. 3,140 patients developed a urethral complication at a median follow-up of 76 months. Table 1 shows the cumulative incidence of urethral complications. On Kaplan-Meier analysis (Figure 1), urethral complication rate was different among groups (p<0.001). On multivariable Cox-regression including age (p<0.001) and stage (p=0.002), all treatment modalities (except for Cryo) were associated with development of urethral complications compared to MT/O. In particular, combined modalities such as RP+RT (HR 2.9; p<0.001) and RT+Cryo (HR 3.6; p<0.001) showed the highest risk. Complications after RP reached a plateau at 10 years whereas other modalities continued to accumulate complications over the long-term. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing prostate cancer treatment are at risk developing urethral complications in the long-term regardless of treatment type. Specifically, combined modalities pose a heightened risk for developing these complications. Download PPT Source of Funding: Not applicable © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e516 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Carlos I. Calvo More articles by this author Keith F. Rourke More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".