BACKGROUND: Understanding stakeholders\' perception of cure in prostate cancer (PC) is essential to preparing for effective communication about emerging treatments with curative intent. This study used artificial intelligence (AI) for landscape review and linguistic analysis of definition, context and value of cure among stakeholders in PC.
METHODS: Subject-matter experts (SMEs) selected cure-related key words using Elicit, a semantic literature search engine, and extracted hits containing the key words from Medline, Sermo and Overton, representing academic researchers, health care providers (HCPs) and policymakers, respectively. NetBase Quid, a social media analytics and natural language processing tool, was used to carry out key word searches in social media (representing the general public). NetBase Quid analysed linguistics of key word-specific hit sets for key word count, geolocation and sentiments. SMEs qualitatively summarised key word-specific insights. Contextual terms frequently occurring with key words were identified and quantified.
RESULTS: SMEs identified seven key words applicable to PC (number of acquired hits) across four platforms: Cure (12429), Survivor (6063), Remission (1904), Survivorship (1179), Curative intent (432), No evidence of disease (381) and Complete remission (83). Most commonly used key words were Cure by the general public and HCPs (11815 and 224 hits), Survivorship by academic researchers and Survivor by policymakers (378 hits each). All stakeholders discussed Cure and cure-related key words primarily in early-stage PC and associated them with positive sentiments. All stakeholders defined cure differently but communicated about it in relation to disease measurements (e.g. prostate-specific antigen) or surgery. Stakeholders preferred different terms when discussing cure in PC: Cure (academic researchers), Cure rates (HCPs), Potential cure and Survivor/Survivorship (policymakers) and Cure and Survivor (general public).
CONCLUSIONS: This human-led, AI-assisted large-scale qualitative language-based research revealed that cure was commonly discussed by academic researchers, HCPs, policymakers and the general public, especially in early-stage PC. Stakeholders defined and contextualised cure in their communications differently and associated it with positive value.

UNASSIGNED: This systematic review aims to comprehensively summarize the current prospective evidence regarding Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) in various clinical contexts for pancreatic cancer including its use as neoadjuvant therapy for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC), induction therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), salvage therapy for isolated local recurrence (ILR), adjuvant therapy after radical resection, and as a palliative treatment. Special attention is given to the application of magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT).
UNASSIGNED: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review of the Medline database via PubMed was conducted focusing on prospective studies published within the past decade. Data were extracted concerning study characteristics, outcome measures, toxicity profiles, SBRT dosage and fractionation regimens, as well as additional systemic therapies.
UNASSIGNED: 31 studies with in total 1,571 patients were included in this review encompassing 14 studies for LAPC, 9 for neoadjuvant treatment, 2 for adjuvant treatment, 2 for ILR, with an additional 4 studies evaluating MRgRT. In LAPC, SBRT demonstrates encouraging results, characterized by favorable local control rates. Several studies even report conversion to resectable disease with substantial resection rates reaching 39%. The adoption of MRgRT may provide a solution to the challenge to deliver ablative doses while minimizing severe toxicities. In BRPC, select prospective studies combining preoperative ablative-dose SBRT with modern induction systemic therapies have achieved remarkable resection rates of up to 80%. MRgRT also holds potential in this context. Adjuvant SBRT does not appear to confer relevant advantages over chemotherapy. While prospective data for SBRT in ILR and for palliative pain relief are limited, they corroborate positive findings from retrospective studies.

The optimal therapeutic strategy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients (LAPC) has not yet been established. Our aim is to evaluate how surgery after neoadjuvant treatment with either FOLFIRINOX (FFN) or Gemcitabine-NabPaclitaxel (GemNab) affects the clinical outcome in these patients. LAPC patients treated at our institution were retrospectively analysed to reach this goal. The group characteristics were similar: 35 patients were treated with the FOLFIRINOX regimen and 21 patients with Gemcitabine Nab-Paclitaxel. The number of patients undergoing surgery was 14 in the FFN group (40%) and six in the GemNab group (28.6%). The median Disease-Free Survival (DFS) was 77.10 weeks in the FFN group and 58.65 weeks in the Gem Nab group (p = 0.625), while the median PFS in the unresected group was 49.4 weeks in the FFN group and 30.9 in the GemNab group (p = 0.0029, 95% CI 0.138-0.862, HR 0.345). The overall survival (OS) in the resected population needs a longer follow up to be completely assessed, while the median overall survival (mOS) in the FFN group was 72.10 weeks and 53.30 weeks for the GemNab group (p = 0.06) in the unresected population. Surgery is a valuable option for LAPC patients and it is able to induce a relevant survival advantage. FOLFIRINOX and Gem-NabPaclitaxel should be offered as first options to pancreatic cancer patients in the locally advanced setting.