HDR brachytherapy combined with external beam radiotherapy for unfavorable localized prostate cancer: A single center experience from inception to standard of care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: High dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy is increasingly adopted for dose escalation in prostate cancer treatment. We report the clinical efficacy and toxicity of HDR prostate brachytherapy combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and evaluate the predictability of the biochemical definition of cure of 4-year PSA ≤0.2 ng/mL for failure free survival (FFS). METHODS: A single centre retrospective study was conducted, including all patients with high-tier intermediate risk and high-risk prostate cancer treated with HDR brachytherapy combined with EBRT from 2011 to 2019. Patient and prostate cancer characteristics, treatment, clinical endpoints, and follow up were collected. RESULTS: Total 319 patients were analyzed. The median age was 68 with median follow up of 77.1 months. Total 142 had high-tier intermediate and 177 had high-risk disease. Brachytherapy doses were initially 20 Gy/2 fractions, and subsequently 15 Gy/1 fraction. All patients received 46 Gy/23 fractions of EBRT. Overall survival at 5 and 9 years was 92.2% and 77.0%, respectively. Failure-free survival (FFS) was 86.0% at 5 years and 76.1% at 9 years. PSA ≤ 0.2 ng/mL at 4 years was seen in 79.3% of patients and was associated with FFS of 94.1% at 9 years. Grade 3 urethral stricture, hematuria, or proctitis occurred in 2.8%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: HDR brachytherapy in addition to EBRT is effective treatment for unfavourable localized prostate cancer with a very acceptable toxicity profile. The biochemical definition of cure of PSA < 0.2 ng/mL at 4 years was predictive for FFS at 9 years.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".