Upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: •To determine the effect of an upgrade in Gleason score between initial prostate biopsy and final prostatectomy specimen on the risk of postoperative biochemical recurrence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: •A total of 1629 patients with paired biopsy and radical prostatectomy histology were identified from two prospectively recorded prostate cancer databases. •Information on key clinical and pathological characteristics as well as prostate-specific antigen follow-up was recorded. •Patients who experienced an upgrade in their Gleason score were compared with corresponding patients with concordant tumours of the lower and higher grade. •Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate models were generated to examine the impact of Gleason score upgrade on the risk of postoperative biochemical recurrence. RESULTS: •Overall, 466 patients (28.6%) experienced an upgrade in their Gleason score post radical prostatectomy, in 88.4% of cases involving a change in a single Gleason score point. •Patients upgraded from Gleason 6 (3 + 3) to Gleason 7 (3 + 4) had pathological characteristics that were very similar to Gleason 7 (3 + 4) concordant tumours, with an identical risk of biochemical recurrence. In contrast, patients upgraded from Gleason score 6 (3 + 3) to Gleason 7 (4 + 3) had tumours with pathological characteristics intermediate between the two concordant groups, which was mirrored by their risk of biochemical recurrence. •Patients with Gleason 7 tumours who experienced a change in the predominant pattern from 3 + 4 to 4 + 3 had tumours that resembled Gleason 7 (4 + 3) concordant tumours, with a similar risk of biochemical recurrence. In contrast, patients upgraded from Gleason 7 to Gleason >7 had tumours with intermediate pathological characteristics, and a risk of biochemical recurrence that was significantly different to concordant tumours of the lower and higher grade. •In multivariate models, a change in Gleason score was an independent predictor of biochemical recurrence in the preoperative setting only. •Although a difference in Gleason score was an independent predictor of recurrence in concordant tumours in models based on postoperative variables, an upgrade in Gleason score in discordant tumours was not, with differences in co-segregated adverse pathological characteristics being more predictive. CONCLUSIONS: •Patients experiencing an upgrade in their Gleason score between biopsy and final specimen exhibit significantly more aggressive pathological features than corresponding concordant tumours, and a higher risk of biochemical recurrence post radical prostatectomy. •As Gleason score can be more accurately assessed preoperatively than other prognostic tumour features, continued effort is required to identify those most at risk of upgrading, and to refine biopsy strategies to reduce sampling error.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".