MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prognostic significance of lymphovascular invasion in radical prostatectomy specimens

2012· review· en· W1598877839 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Ng, Aamer Mahmud, Brenda Bass, Michael Brundage

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymphovascular invasionProstatectomyMedicineProstate cancerCochrane LibraryOncologyBiochemical recurrenceMeta-analysisInternal medicineOdds ratioProstate-specific antigenUrologyGynecologyCancerMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study Type – Prognosis (systematic review) Level of Evidence 1a What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Prognostic factors such as serum PSA, tumor T stage, and Gleason grading are commonly used to predict disease progression and mortality in prostate cancer and to guide treatment decision‐making. These markers are combined to define risk strata that are commonly accepted in practice. Despite the assignment of patients to a specific risk stratum (e.g. intermediate‐risk disease), however, within‐stratum survival duration varies considerably, suggesting that many other factors, including lymphovascular invasion (LVI) may influence prognosis. LVI is currently a recognized prognostic factor in the management of some cancers (e.g. in early‐stage breast cancer) and prostate cancer is known to spread via lymphatic channels. Furthermore, the reporting of microscopic lymphovascular invasion is now considered part of the standard pathologic report of prostatectomy specimens. Nevertheless, scientific studies in this area have produced conflicting conclusions regarding the utility of LVI as a prognostic indicator in prostate cancer. This paper provides a comprehensive review and synthesis of the recent literature. Although a number of studies examining the role of LVI as an independent prognostic factor for biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer have been reported, the characteristics, quality and results of these studies vary considerably. The value of using LVI as a prognostic factor in prostate cancer remains unclear. This study provides a systematically‐performed synthesis of the results of recent research including lymphovascular invasion (LVI) in the multivariate analyses of potential prostate cancer prognostic factors. Not only do we report on the results of these studies, we assess the heterogeneity of the study populations, disease characteristics, and quality of the studies. Ultimately, we determined that meta‐analysis of the existing data is not possible, and thus, there is no ‘best estimate’ of the strength of association between LVI status and disease recurrence after prostatectomy. Most studies, but not all, reveal a weak or statistically insignificant association between LVI status and recurrence. We therefore conclude with a recommendation to clinicians that they should not overweight the importance of LVI status on clinical prognostication. The use of LVI status as a strong predictor of clinical outcomes is not recommended. OBJECTIVES To synthesize the results of studies including lymphovascular invasion (LVI) in the multivariate analyses of potential prostate cancer prognostic factors. To determine the role of LVI as an independent prognostic factor for biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS We performed a comprehensive systematic literature review of studies examining the association between LVI in prostatectomy specimens and prostate cancer recurrence. Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Review of Effects (DARE) and Google Scholar were searched from January 2000 to February 2009. The primary outcome of interest was biochemical recurrence measured by serum prostate specific antigen (PSA). RESULTS One thousand two hundred and forty‐eight papers met our search criteria. Of these, 19 articles meeting our selection criteria reported results of a multivariate analysis to evaluate LVI as an independent prognostic factor of biochemical recurrence. Eleven (58%) of these studies concluded that LVI was an independent prognostic factor. Significant heterogeneity in the study population, disease characteristics and quality of the studies prevented meta‐analysis of the results. In the nine studies in which the magnitude of independent association of LVI with recurrence was reported, it ranged from an odds ratio or relative risk of 1.37 to 4.39. CONCLUSIONS The existing literature is conflicting and of insufficient homogeneity to definitively establish LVI as an important independent prognostic factor of biochemical recurrence in prostate cancer prostatectomy specimens. Additional adequately powered studies are required to determine the clinical value of reports of LVI involvement. In the meantime, the use of LVI status as an independent prognostic factor for clinical prognostication and medical decision making is not recommended.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.012
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207