MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394837840 · doi:10.3390/siuj5020020

Rectal Spacer Reduces Gastrointestinal Side Effects of Radiation Post Radical Prostatectomy

2024· article· en· W4394837840 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anne Hong, Damien Bolton, Trung Pham, David Angus, David Pan, Daryl Lim Joon, Alwin Tan, Kevin McMillan, Yee Chan, Paul Manohar, Joe Thomas, Huong Ho, Peter F. Orio, Emily Holt, M. Cokelek, Nathan Lawrentschuk, Farshad Foroudi, Michael Chao

Bibliographic record

VenueSociété Internationale d’Urologie Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCommon Terminology Criteria for Adverse EventsProstatectomyRadiation therapySurgeryAdverse effectSalvage therapyRectumRadiologyNuclear medicineProstate cancerCancerInternal medicineChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Our objective was to assess the rate of complications and gastrointestinal adverse effects of rectal spacer insertion for salvage post prostatectomy radiation therapy. Methods: A retrospective observational study was performed. Between September 2018 and March 2022, 64 post-radical prostatectomy patients who were planned for salvage radiation therapy received a rectal spacer. The selected patients were those who had nerve-sparing prostatectomy with intrafascial or interfascial dissections (where Denonvillier’s fascia is retained). Radiation dose to the rectal wall and gastrointestinal symptoms were assessed. Symptoms were graded using the National Cancer Center Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0 grading scheme. A total of 39 patients had pre-spacer planning computer tomography (CT) scans, and the rectal dose before and after the spacer insertion was calculated. Comparisons were made using the Student’s t-test, with a p-value < 0.05 representing statistical significance. Finally, clinicians were surveyed to rate the ease of the procedure using a 5-point Likert scale of 1 to 5 (1: very difficult, 2: difficult, 3: moderate, 4: easy, 5: very easy). Results: A total of 64 patients successfully underwent rectal spacer insertion. The mean age was 64.4 years (standard deviation: 5.7 years). After a median of 14 months’ (range 6 to 35) follow up, acute grade 1 and above gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities were seen in 28% of patients (grade 2 in 1.5%), and late grade 1 and above GI toxicities were seen in 12% of patients (grade 2 in 1.5%). Amongst the 39 patients with pre-spacer planning CT images, the volume of the rectum receiving 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, and 100% of the prescribed radiation dose was reduced by 25.9%, 34.2%, 35.4%, 43.7%, and 61.7%, respectively. All dose reductions were statistically significant. The procedure was rated as “easy” or “very easy” to perform in 56% of cases. Conclusions: The insertion of a rectal spacer in selected patients undergoing PPRT is feasible and safe and significantly improves rectal wall radiation dosimetry in salvage post prostatectomy radiation therapy. It was accomplished in >95% of patients, increasing vesico-rectal separation from ‘immediate vicinity’ to 11 mm without any post-operative complications in experienced hands. In addition, it achieved significant reduction in rectal radiation doses, leading to low rates of acute and late grade 2 toxicity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociété Internationale d’Urologie JournalSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207