Differential outcomes of re-stratified high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiation therapy plus high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We report outcomes of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients, initially classified according to a 3-tier NCCN classification system, treated with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and high-dose-rate brachytherapy boost (HDR-BT). Patients were analyzed based on a re-stratification of their risk grouping using CAPRA score and a newer 5-tier NCCN classification. Material and methods: 471 high-risk PCa patients treated with EBRT, HDR-BT, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) between 1999 and 2018 were included. Competing risk survival analyses to compare individuals with CAPRA scores < 6 vs. ≥ 6 for biochemical relapse (BCR) and metastasis incidence were conducted. Also, overall survival (OS) for both groups using Kaplan-Meier analysis was assessed. The same analyses were repeated using a 5-tier NCCN stratification comparing those classified as high-risk vs. very high-risk patients. Results: = 0.002). Conclusions: We showed that high-risk PCa patients classified according to the 3-tier NCCN system benefit from further stratification using the CAPRA score or the 5-tier NCCN stratification method. Patients with a CAPRA score ≥ 6 or classified as very high-risk demonstrate a higher hazard of BCR, metastasis, and death. These patients might benefit from further intensification of their investigations and treatment, based on ongoing research.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".