MP42-18 PATIENTS ELIGIBLE FOR ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE WHO CHOSE TO UNDERGO PROSTATECTOMY: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROSTATE CANCER FEATURES ON BIOPSY AND FINAL PATHOLOGIC REPORT
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized I1 Apr 2015MP42-18 PATIENTS ELIGIBLE FOR ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE WHO CHOSE TO UNDERGO PROSTATECTOMY: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROSTATE CANCER FEATURES ON BIOPSY AND FINAL PATHOLOGIC REPORT Benjamin Katz, Sue-Jean Yu, Elton Llukani, Andrew Lightfoot, Kelly Monahan, Alice McGill, and David Lee Benjamin KatzBenjamin Katz More articles by this author , Sue-Jean YuSue-Jean Yu More articles by this author , Elton LlukaniElton Llukani More articles by this author , Andrew LightfootAndrew Lightfoot More articles by this author , Kelly MonahanKelly Monahan More articles by this author , Alice McGillAlice McGill More articles by this author , and David LeeDavid Lee More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.1603AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Active surveillance (AS) has become an increasing acceptable management option for men with localized prostate cancer who have low risk clinical features. Our goal was to evaluate the preoperative data in men with prostate cancer and correlate this with post prostatectomy specimens in patients who were eligible for AS but chose to undergo robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS We performed a single-institution; single-surgeon review of 3433 patients who underwent RARP from 2005 to 2014 under an IRB approved protocol. The inclusion criteria were: PSA ≤ 10, clinical stage T1-T2a, Gleason score 6 or less on biopsy, less than 33% of cores positive and less than 50% of tumor percentage in one core. We compared preoperative data with the pathological features of prostate cancer using t-test (continuous) and chi-square test (categorical). RESULTS 2,952 patients had all data points available and of these patients, 1131 qualified for AS. Among them, 577 (51%) were found to have upgraded Gleason scores on their prostatectomy specimen. There were 552 patients upgraded to Gleason 7, 21 to Gleason 8, and 3 to Gleason 9. Only 1 patient downgraded from Gleason 6 to 5. Positive margins were found in 118 patients (10.4%), 34 of those being focally positive (3%). Pathologic stage T3 was identified in 106 patients (9.4%). Also, one patient presented with lymph node involvement on surgical pathology report. CONCLUSIONS Our study highlights an alarming percentage of men whose Gleason score was upgraded and staged following RARP. AS is an exciting and promising treatment option in the management of prostate cancer; however, appropriate education and counsel should be given to patients about the risks associated with this management style. Figure 1. Gleason score comparison from pre-operative biopsy to pathology report © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 193Issue 4SApril 2015Page: e516 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Benjamin Katz More articles by this author Sue-Jean Yu More articles by this author Elton Llukani More articles by this author Andrew Lightfoot More articles by this author Kelly Monahan More articles by this author Alice McGill More articles by this author David Lee More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».