MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pathological results and rates of treatment failure in high‐risk prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy

2010· article· en· W1579723599 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerProstatectomyMedicineBiochemical recurrenceUrologyBiopsyStage (stratigraphy)PathologicalProstateProstate-specific antigenProstate biopsyCancerInternal medicineOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study Type – Therapy (outcomes research) Level of Evidence 2b What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add? In the current literature, cT3 stage, biopsy Gleason > 8, PSA > 20 ng/ml, and D’Amico high‐risk category are frequently used definitions of high‐risk prostate cancer. Patients with clinically localized high‐risk prostate cancer do not have a uniformly poor prognosis after surgery. The rates of favourable pathological characteristics and biochemical‐recurrence free survival vary depending on the definition used for high‐risk prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE • To investigate the pathological characteristics and the rates of biochemical recurrence (BCR) ‐free survival after radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with high‐risk prostate cancer. METHODS • Of 4760 patients treated with RP for prostate cancer at three institutions, 293 patients (6.2%) had clinical stage T3, 269 (5.7%) had a biopsy Gleason sum ≥ 8, 370 (7.8%) had preoperative PSA ≥ 20 ng/mL and 887 (18.6%) were considered high‐risk according to the D’Amico classification (clinical stage ≥ T2c or prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) ≥ 20 ng/mL or biopsy Gleason sum ≥ 8). • Actuarial BCR‐free survival probabilities after RP and the rate of favourable pathology (organ‐confined cancer, negative surgical margin and Gleason ≤ 7) were assessed. RESULTS • Median follow up was 2.4 years and 1179 (24.8%) patients had follow up beyond 5 years. • The rate of favourable pathology increased in the following order: clinical stage T3 (13.7%), biopsy Gleason ≥ 8 (16.4%), the D’Amico high‐risk group (21.4%) and PSA ≥ 20 ng/mL (21.6%). • The 5‐year BCR‐free survival probabilities were 35.4% for Gleason ≥ 8, 39.8% for PSA ≥ 20 ng/mL, 47.4% for D’Amico high‐risk group and 51.6% for clinical stage T3. • Patients with only one risk factor had the most favourable 5‐year BCR‐free survival (50.3%), relative to patients with two or more risk factors (27.5%) CONCLUSIONS • Men with clinically localized high‐risk prostate cancer do not have a uniformly poor prognosis after RP. • The rate of favourable pathology and of BCR‐free survival may vary substantially, depending on the definition used. • RP should be considered a valid treatment modality for high‐risk prostate cancer patients, as many can be surgically down‐staged.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it