MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414004091 · doi:10.1002/cncr.70070

Association of patient and physician characteristics with androgen‐deprivation‐therapy intensification in patients with de novo hormone‐sensitive metastatic prostate cancer: A population‐based study

2025· article· en· W4414004091 on OpenAlexafffundabout
David‐Dan Nguyen, Raj Satkunasivam, Khatereh Aminoltejari, Amanda Hird, Soumyajit Roy, Scott C. Morgan, Shawn Malone, Michael Ong, Di Jiang, Geoffrey Gotto, Bobby Shayegan, Girish S. Kulkarni, Rodney H. Breau, Aly‐Khan A. Lalani, Christopher J.D. Wallis

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonUniversity of CalgaryPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOttawa HospitalJuravinski Cancer CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoCanadian Urological Association Scholarship FundBayer
KeywordsMedicineDocetaxelAndrogen deprivation therapyInternal medicineProstate cancerOncologyCohortPopulationCancerAndrogen receptorGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Treatment intensification with androgen receptor signaling inhibitors and/or chemotherapy is guideline recommended for patients with de novo metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). However, most patients only receive androgen deprivation therapy monotherapy. The aim was to identify physician-, patient-, and tumor-related factors associated with the receipt of treatment intensification. METHODS: A population-based cohort study was conducted in Ontario, Canada, which included men ≥66 years newly diagnosed with de novo mHSPC between January 2014 and December 2022. Hierarchical regression modeling was used to examine the association of physician, patient, and tumor characteristics with the receipt of treatment intensification, defined as the initiation of an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor, docetaxel, or both within six months of diagnosis. Darlington's method was used to assess predictor importance via standardized regression coefficients (SRC). RESULTS: Among 6099 eligible older men newly diagnosed with de novo mHSPC, 1475 (24.2%) received treatment intensification. In multivariable modeling, patients initiated on androgen deprivation therapy by radiation oncologists were less likely to receive treatment intensification (odds ratio [OR]. 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.61; p < .01; SRC: 19.46; p < .01) whereas those by medical oncologists were more likely to receive treatment intensification (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.21-2.22; p < .01; SRC: 9.56; p < .01), each compared to urologists. Older patients were significantly less likely to receive treatment intensification (OR 0.94 per year over age 66; 95% CI, 0.93-0.95; p < .01; SRC: -36.21; p < .01). CONCLUSION: Patient and physician characteristics significantly influence variation in the use of treatment intensification for de novo mHSPC. These findings inform targeted interventions and policies to enhance the delivery of life-prolonging mHSPC care.

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)0.002
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 score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancerSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207