MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Population-based assessment of treatment patterns for high-risk localized prostate cancer.

2025· article· en· W4407702698 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christopher J.D. Wallis, Shawn Malone, Ilias Cagiannos, Robert J. Hamilton, Naveen S. Basappa, Cristiano Ferrario, Geoffrey Gotto, Ricardo M. Fernandes, Tamim Niazi, Christopher Morash, Ricardo Rendon, Fred Saad, Sebastién J. Hotte, B. Osborne, Anousheh Zardan, Bobby Shayegan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityJuravinski Cancer CentreCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversityMount Sinai HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaJewish General HospitalMcGill UniversityUniversity of OttawaUniversity Health NetworkOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerOncologyCancerPopulationRisk assessmentInternal medicineProstateGynecologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

349 Background: Patients diagnosed with high- or very high risk (H/vHR) prostate cancer (PCa) are at substantial risk of disease recurrence, metastasis, and death after treatment. Historically, treatment paradigms for these patients have been similar to those with intermediate-risk (IR) disease [radiotherapy (RT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radical prostatectomy (RP)] though there is a growing body of evidence supporting intensified systemic therapy in this group. To contextualize this emerging trial data, we characterized real world treatment patterns for these patients. Methods: We performed a retrospective population-based cohort study using province-wide linked administrative data in Ontario, Canada. We descriptively characterized initial treatment patterns (within 1 year of diagnosis) for men with H/vHR PCa and compared them to a concurrent cohort of patients with IR disease to assess differences in management. Results: We identified 13,206 patients diagnosed with H/vHR PCa from 2010-2021 who were compared to 18,365 with IR disease. Most patients received active treatment, though rates were statistically significantly higher in the H/vHR (n=12,606, 95.5%) than IR cohort (n=14,995, 81.6%; p<0.001; standardized diff 0.44). 6207 (47%) of patients in the H/vHR cohort and 7286 (40%) of patients in the IR cohort underwent RP (p<0.001; standardized difference 0.148). Median time to RP was 98 days in the HR cohort and 105 days in the IR cohort (Median time (Q1-Q3); p<0.003; standardized difference 0.11). 6321 (47.9%) of those with H/vHR disease and 7427 (40.4%) of those with IR disease underwent radiotherapy (p<0.001; standardized difference 0.150). Very few patients received intensified systemic therapy: 77 patients (0.2%) received chemotherapy and 49 (0.2%) received androgen receptor pathway inhibitors. While treatment patterns were similar, patients with H/vHR disease were more likely to progress to metastasis (46% vs 30%, p<0.001) and more rapidly (2.6 vs 4.3 years, p<0.001), with similar patterns observed for CRPC, mCRPC treatment, prostate cancer events, and death. Conclusions: Despite higher rates of treatment, patients with H/vHR localized disease experience significantly worse clinical outcomes than those with IR. These data highlight the need for therapies which can improve clinical outcomes in this patient population, such as the potential use of intensified systemic therapies including Androgen Receptor Pathway Inhibitors (ARPIs).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.437 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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