MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416424420 · doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.4800

Optimal Duration of Androgen Deprivation Therapy With Definitive Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer

2025· article· en· W4416424420 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas G. Zaorsky, Yilun Sun, Abdenour Nabid, Almudena Zapatero, M. Bolla, David Joseph, P. Maingon, A. Guerrero, A. Alvarez Gonzalez, Carmen González‐San Segundo, María Ángeles Cabeza Rodríguez, Josep María Macias i Solé, Agustí Pedro Olivé, Allison Steigler, Luís Souhami, Nathalie Carrier, John G. Armstrong, Charles Gillham, Thomas M. Pisansky, Matthew J. Schipper, Howard M. Sandler, Jason A. Efstathiou, C.A. Lawton, Theo M. de Reijke, Gerhardt Attard, Soumyajit Roy, Scott C. Morgan, Shawn Malone, William A. Hall, Paul L. Nguyen, Jonathan E. Shoag, Randy Vince, Adam Calaway, Jorge A. García, Pedro C. Barata, Prateek Mendiratta, Jason R. Brown, Luca Valle, Matthew B. Rettig, Robert T. Dess, Will Jackson, Ting Martin, Angela Y. Jia, Michael L. Steinberg, Tahmineh Romero, Amar U. Kishan, Daniel E. Spratt

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaMcGill University Health CentreCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerAndrogen deprivation therapyRadiation therapyDuration (music)AndrogenMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: The ideal duration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for treating localized prostate cancer is unknown due to variable adherence and treatment durations tested in clinical trials. Objective: To determine the ideal duration of ADT for patients with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy. Data Sources: This individual patient data meta-analysis of 13 randomized phase 3 clinical trials evaluated the use of radiotherapy alone or with ADT. It included patients with a median follow-up of 11.3 (IQR, 9.5-14.5) years and ADT duration of 0 to 36 months. Most patients (7392 [72%]) included had National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk or very high-risk disease. Study Selection: For this meta-analysis, a systematic literature search from 1980 to 2020 was performed in trial registries (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov), MEDLINE (1966-2020), Embase (1982-2020), Web of Science, and Scopus to identify trials. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Intention-to-treat and as-treated analyses were performed. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 distant metastasis at 10 years was calculated based on prognostic risk group. The analyses were conducted from January 5 to August 15, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point for this study was overall survival, defined as time to death or last follow-up from randomization. Secondary end points included biochemical recurrence, distant metastasis (DM), prostate cancer-specific mortality, and other-cause mortality. Results: The median (IQR) age among the 10 266 male patients was 70 (65-74) years. Longer durations of ADT were associated with nonlinear improvement in relative benefits of DM, prostate cancer-specific mortality, and overall survival, with reduced estimated benefits beyond 9 to 12 months of ADT based on the end point. There was a near-linear increase in other-cause mortality associated with long-term ADT use (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.09-1.50; P = .002 for 28 vs 0 months of ADT). The optimal ADT duration based on 10-year DM was 0, 6, 12 months, and undefined for patients with 1 intermediate-risk factor, 2 or more intermediate-risk factors, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk and very high-risk disease, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that, for men with localized prostate cancer treated with definitive radiotherapy and ADT, there are relative and absolute benefits from increasing durations of ADT that help provide individualized risk estimates.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207