Correlation of the primary Gleason pattern on prostate needle biopsy with clinico-pathological factors in Gleason 7 tumors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To correlate the primary Gleason pattern among patients with biopsy-derived Gleason 7 tumors with the radical prostatectomy specimen Gleason grading and other clinical and pathologic outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Among 474 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer between 1997-2001, 205 (43%) had Gleason 7/10 tumors on pre-operative needle biopsy. Among theses patients, 148 (72.2%) were assigned a primary Gleason 3 pattern (3+4 = 7) and 57 (27.8%) were assigned a primary Gleason 4 pattern (4+3 = 7). The two groups were compared with respect to age, serum PSA levels, Gleason grade in the radical prostatectomy specimen, pathological stage and surgical margin status. RESULTS: Among patients with 3+4 tumors on needle biopsy, 64% remained primary Gleason grade 3 while 35% were up-graded to a primary pattern 4 following analysis of the radical prostatectomy specimen. Patients with 4+3 tumors on needle biopsy remained primary Gleason grade 4 in 51% of patients, while 49% of patients had their tumors down-graded to a primary 3 pattern (p = 0.09). There were no differences between patients with needle biopsy 3+4 and 4+3 patterns with respect to total Gleason score in the radical prostatectomy specimen (p = 0.42), pTNM stage (p = 0.36), extra-prostatic extension (p = 0.88), surgical margin involvement (p = 0.16), and seminal vesicle invasion (p = 0.19). In contrast, the primary Gleason pattern in the radical prostatectomy specimen correlated significantly with pTNM stage (p = 0.02) and seminal vesicle invasion (p= 0.003), but not with extra-prostatic extension (p = 0.32) and surgical margin involvement (p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with Gleason 7 adenocarcinoma of the prostate, the biopsy-derived primary Gleason pattern does not appear to correlate with important clinical and pathologic outcomes. The utility of distinguishing a primary Gleason pattern on needle biopsy among patients with Gleason 7 tumors remains unclear given the limited and conflicting literature addressing this issue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".