MP47-07 EJACULATORY FUNCTION AFTER RADIOTHERAPY FOR PROSTATE CANCER: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Medical, Hormonal & Non-surgical Therapy I (MP47)1 May 2024MP47-07 EJACULATORY FUNCTION AFTER RADIOTHERAPY FOR PROSTATE CANCER: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS Umar Ghaffar, Behzad Abbasi, Nikit Venishetty, Adrian Fernandez, Robert Pearce, Nizar Hakam, Kevin D. Li, Hiren Patel, and Benjamin N. Breyer Umar GhaffarUmar Ghaffar , Behzad AbbasiBehzad Abbasi , Nikit VenishettyNikit Venishetty , Adrian FernandezAdrian Fernandez , Robert PearceRobert Pearce , Nizar HakamNizar Hakam , Kevin D. LiKevin D. Li , Hiren PatelHiren Patel , and Benjamin N. BreyerBenjamin N. Breyer View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008880.11564.10.07AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Ejaculation profiles in radiated men with prostate cancer have not been summarized in the existing literature. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess ejaculatory outcomes after radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer. METHODS: Databases including PubMed, Embase and Web of science were systematically queried to identify 18 articles assessing ejaculatory function post-radiation. Primary outcome was anejaculation rate and secondary outcomes included ejaculatory volume (EV), ejaculatory discomfort (ED) and mean decline in ejaculatory function scores (EFS). Quality assessment was done by Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Pooled proportions were calculated using inverse variance and random effects models for anejaculation rate and ejaculatory volume. RESULTS: Eighteen observational studies with 2115 patients reporting ejaculatory profiles post-RT were identified. Seven studies utilized external beam RT, 7 brachytherapy, 1 stereotactic RT and 2 utilized either external or brachytherapy in 1. Anejaculation rate was reported by 10 studies. The pooled proportion of anejaculation with random-effects model was 0.18 (95% CI 0.11-0.36). Pooled proportion of patients having decreased ejaculatory volume was 0.85 (95% CI 0.81-0.89). Ejaculatory discomfort was reported in 5 studies ranging from 3% to 15%. Decline in ejaculatory function scores was reported by 5 studies with 4 reaching statistical significance (Table 1). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing radiation are likely to experience meaningful impact on ejaculation profiles and hence should be counselled on the trajectory of these side-effects. Download PPT Source of Funding: N/A © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e764 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Umar Ghaffar More articles by this author Behzad Abbasi More articles by this author Nikit Venishetty More articles by this author Adrian Fernandez More articles by this author Robert Pearce More articles by this author Nizar Hakam More articles by this author Kevin D. Li More articles by this author Hiren Patel More articles by this author Benjamin N. Breyer 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".