MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The role of androgen deprivation therapy prior to radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review

2024· review· en· W4396895328 on OpenAlexaff
Yenny ARROYO-ROJAS, Lara Rodríguez‐Sánchez, Gianmarco Colandrea, Hugo Otaola-Arca, Camille Lanz, Éric Barret, Rafael Sánchez-Salas, Petr Macek, Xavier Cathelineau

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerva Urology and Nephrology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstatectomyProstate cancerAndrogen deprivation therapyHormonal therapySystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialCochrane LibraryObservational studyPathologicalOncologyAntiandrogenMEDLINEClinical trialInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Patients with high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) are prone to have worse pathological features, resulting in early biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy (RP). There is an urgent need to develop novel treatment strategies for this group of patients to optimize their outcomes. The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review of the role of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT) followed by RP in HRPCa patients. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a systematic review of the following databases, MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and clinical Trial.gov; between January 2007 and August 2023, following the PRISMA guidelines. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: After screening and deduplication, we included ten studies from an initial pool of 1275. The risk of bias was low in observational studies but ranged from moderate to low in controlled trials. Five studies utilized traditional androgen deprivation treatments (ADT), revealing favorable pathological outcomes but inconsistency in evaluating oncological results. Additionally, four studies focused on RP combined with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) in the NHT setting, all showing primarily positive pathological outcome, with no clear evidence of an oncological benefit. Limited long-term follow-up data and a shortage of randomized controlled trials were evident among all the studies included in this review, regardless of the type of hormonal treatment used. CONCLUSIONS: Different hormonal treatments, including traditional ADT and ARPIs, yield positive pathology outcomes. Oncological evidence remains limited, echoing older findings predating ARPIs. Definitive conclusions require longer follow-ups and precise patient selection. Currently, insufficient evidence support ARPIs' superiority over conventional therapy before RP.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.305
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinerva Urology and NephrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207