MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402907203 · doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.07.1253

Quality of Life and Weight Variation during Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Patients with High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Data from a Phase III Trial

2024· article· en· W4402907203 on OpenAlexaff
Abdenour Nabid, N. Carrier, A.G. Martin, J.P. Bahary, P. Vavassis, S.T. Vass, B. Bahoric, R. Archambault, F. Vincent, Rédouane Bettahar, M. Duclos, L. Souhami

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-QuébecJewish General HospitalCentre de Santé et de Services Sociaux de ChicoutimiCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité LavalHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontMcGill University Health CentreCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAndrogen deprivation therapyProstate cancerQuality of life (healthcare)OncologyTerm (time)MedicineAndrogenInternal medicineCancerHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We assessed the impact of weight (wt) variation on quality of life (QoL). Using data from a Phase III trial in high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC) and based on Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO), we compared long-term QoL between HRPC patients (pts) with wt gain or loss during initial androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). From 10/2000 to 01/2008, 630 pts were randomized to 36 (310 pts) vs. 18 months (m) (320 pts) of ADT. Wt was measured at baseline and regularly during ADT. We assessed QoL by the validated EORTC 30 items questionnaire regrouped into 9 scales. PRO was measured up to 6.5 and 7 years for pts receiving 18 and or 36 m of ADT, respectively. All items and scales scores were linearly transformed to a 0 to100 points scale. We estimated means and standard deviation of items and scales for each group at each time point. We analyzed all items and scales scores with general linear model with repeated measures to evaluate changes between pts who gain vs. lost wt over time, in both ADT groups. P- value <0.01 was considered statistically significant to account for multiple comparisons and a difference in mean scores of ≥10 points was considered clinically relevant. 311/630 pts were retained for the analysis. Reasons for exclusion: not exact dose of ADT (96), no wt at baseline (89) or at the end of ADT (130), no QoL at baseline or at 6 m (4). During ADT course, 209/311 (67.2%) pts gained and 102/311 (32.8%) lost wt. There was no significant difference in the mean ± SD wt gain at the end of ADT in pts receiving 36- or 18 m (2.57 ± 5.39 vs. 1.93 ± 4.22, p = 0.27). Wt gain over 2 kg was similar between cohorts (50% vs. 52.8%, p = 0.62), but wt gain over 4 kg was lower in the18 m cohort (27.1% vs. 37.4%, p = 0.056). Wt loss was not significant between cohorts, irrespective of amount lost. Wt loss impacted on overall survival in the 36 m cohort [HR (95% CI) = 1.93 (1.24-2.99), p = 0.004], although no significant difference was seen in the 18 m cohort [HR = 1.18 (0.81-1.72), p = 0.39]. Considering the unified 30 items, overall adherence to QoL questionnaires was 83.1% (2887/3309). It was 93.6% vs. 95.9% at baseline and 70.7% vs 87.0% at 5 years, for 18 vs. 36 m, respectively. Wt loss impacted on QoL. Significant differences (p<0.01) were observed for 8 items and 2 scales related to overall QoL, including emotional, cognitive, fatigue and appetite loss, and financial difficulties in the 18 m cohort. Similarly, significant differences (p<0.01) were observed for 8 items and 6 scales related to physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and dyspnea in the 36 m cohort. Likewise, several items reached clinical relevance in the 18 (overall QoL, memory) and in the 36 m cohort (role, dyspnea, limited physical activity, fatigue). In HRPC pts treated with long-term ADT, wt loss during ADT is associated with poorer outcomes in QoL in several domains and a worst survival in the 36 m cohort.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→