MP63-13 REPEAT PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN TESTING REDUCES UNNECESSARY PROSTATE BIOPSIES.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Detection & Screening III1 Apr 2014MP63-13 REPEAT PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN TESTING REDUCES UNNECESSARY PROSTATE BIOPSIES. Andrew Binette, Kelsey Witiuk, Ranjeeta Mallick, Chris Morash, Ilias Cagiannos, Luke Lavallee, and Rodney Breau Andrew BinetteAndrew Binette More articles by this author , Kelsey WitiukKelsey Witiuk More articles by this author , Ranjeeta MallickRanjeeta Mallick More articles by this author , Chris MorashChris Morash More articles by this author , Ilias CagiannosIlias Cagiannos More articles by this author , Luke LavalleeLuke Lavallee More articles by this author , and Rodney BreauRodney Breau More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.1950AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The impact of repeating a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test in a patient with a single abnormal value has been inadequately studied. Our primary objective was to evaluate the effect of an automatic repeat PSA in patients referred to a regional cancer diagnostic centre with an abnormal PSA value. METHODS All patients seen at The Ottawa Regional Prostate Cancer Assessment Clinic from April 2008 to May 2013 were reviewed. As per protocol, all patients were requested to obtain a repeat PSA prior to their consultation. Patients referred with a PSA ≥10 ng/L, a previous prostate biopsy, normal initial PSA value, or greater than 3 months between PSA tests were excluded. Patient age, prostate exam findings, and PSA values were obtained. Any prostate biopsy within 1 year following initial consultation was included. RESULTS Of the 1758 patients seen during the study period, 1271 (72%) met inclusion criteria and had a PSA at referral between 4 and 10 ng/L. Mean age was 64.3±8.4, mean first PSA was 6.3±1.6, and mean second PSA was 9.8±150.7. The repeated PSA was normal (<4ng/L) in 315 (25%) patients. A prostate biopsy was performed in 594 (62%) patients with an abnormal repeat PSA compared to 89 (28%) patients with a normal repeat PSA (RR of biopsy associated with abnormal repeat 2.20; CI 1.8-2.6; p<0.001). When the repeat PSA was abnormal, 57% of biopsies detected cancer and 31% detected Gleason ≥7 cancer. When the repeat PSA was normal, only 29% detected cancer (RR 0.52; CI 0.4-0.7; p<0.0001) and 11% detected Gleason ≥7 cancer (RR 0.69; CI 0.4-1.1; p=0.15). Analyses using age-specific and 2.5ng/L PSA thresholds had similar associations and will be presented. CONCLUSIONS Repeat PSA testing in patients with an abnormal screening PSA is clinically useful. A normal second PSA is associated with decreased risk of prostate biopsy and prostate cancer diagnosis. © 2014FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 191 Issue 4S April 2014 Page: e713 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014Metrics Author Information Andrew Binette More articles by this author Kelsey Witiuk More articles by this author Ranjeeta Mallick More articles by this author Chris Morash More articles by this author Ilias Cagiannos More articles by this author Luke Lavallee More articles by this author Rodney Breau 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 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 0,002 |
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 ».