MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Impact of testosterone recovery after androgen deprivation therapy on overall survival in patients with high-risk prostate cancer: Long-term data from a phase III trial.

2025· article· en· W4407700626 on OpenAlexaff
Abdenour Nabid, Nathalie Carrier, André‐Guy Martin, Jean-Paul Bahary, Peter Vavassis, Sylvie Vass, Boris Bahoric, Robert Archambault, F. Vincent, Rédouane Bettahar, Marie Duclos, Luís Souhami

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
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-QuébecCégep de l'OutaouaisCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanUniversité LavalHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontMcGill University Health CentreCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Bas-Saint-LaurentCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerAndrogen deprivation therapyTestosterone (patch)OncologyInternal medicineProstateAndrogenOverall survivalCancerUrologyGynecologyHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

310 Background: To determine the potential impact of persistent hypogonadism on overall survival (OS) after prolonged androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients (pts) with high-risk prostate cancer. Methods: From 10/2000 to 01/2008, 630 pts were randomised to pelvic radiotherapy (RT) plus 36 (310 pts) vs. 18 months (320 pts) of ADT. Serum testosterone (T) was prospectively collected at baseline, then regularly. We defined T recovery as a return of T to within the normal range value of each participating institution, regardless of whether it was initially normal or abnormal. Excluded from the analysis were pts not receiving exactly 18 or 36 months of ADT (48), or had no T measured at baseline or during follow-up (67). We compared OS between patients recovering or not T to a normal level using the log rank test. Multivariable analysis to predict OS included recovered T to a normal level, age, Zubrod, comorbidities, baseline PSA, Gleason score, stage and ADT duration. Results: 515/630 pts had proper T data available (baseline and follow-up) and were retained for the analysis. The results are reported with a median follow-up of 17.4 years. Over a period of 22 years, 6587 T measurements were available. A total of 270/515 pts (52.4%) recovered T to normal level, 188/330 (57%) in the 18-month and 82/185 (44.3%) in the 36-month cohort, p=0.006. Pts not recovering T to a normal level were older, had higher clinical stage and diabetes. Among pts regaining T to a normal level, the median time to T recovery was 3.6 (IQR 2.9-4.9) years.10- and 15-year OS rates were 76% (71-81) and 44% (38-51) for pts recovering T vs. 55% (49-62) and 30% (24-36) for those who did not, p<0.001. A significant lower risk of death favoured pts recovering T when considering the global hazard ratio (HR) [HR (95% CI) = 0.54 (0.44-0.67), p<0.001]. Significant differences in HR for death are maintained for both 18-month [HR = 0.51 (0.39-0.66), p<0.001] and 36-month cohort [HR = 0.58 (0.40-0.84), p=0.004]. In multivariable analyses, the impact of T recovery remains significant for the risk of death [(HR = 0.69 (0.55-0.86), p=0.001], and also for the 18-month [HR = 0.70 (0.53-0.93), p=0.013] and the 36-month cohort [(HR = 0.61 (0.40-0.93), p=0.021]. In a multivariable model, among pts regaining T to a normal level, the time to T recovery had no impact on OS [HR = 0.97 (0.90-1.04), p=0.41]. Of note, there was no significant difference in the rate of death from prostate cancer between pts recovering or not T (11.9% vs. 13.5%, p=0.58). Competing risk analysis confirms this finding [sHR = 0.83 (0.51-1.35), p=0.57]. Conclusions: In high-risk prostate cancer treated with RT and long-term ADT, T recovery to normal level is associated with a significant improvement in overall survival. The increased death rate in pts not recovering T is likely due to causes unrelated to prostate cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT00223171 .

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.373 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→