MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1725314107 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.800

The 20-core prostate biopsy as an initial strategy: impact on the detection of prostatic cancer

2013· article· en· W1725314107 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohamed Amine Jradi, Mohamed Dridi, Mourad Teyeb, Mokhtar Ould Sidi Mohamed, Ramzi Khiary, Samir Ghozzi, N. Ben Raïs

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerProstateMedicineProstate biopsyBiopsyUrologyRectal examinationCancerCancer detectionProstate-specific antigenGynecologyRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: To increase the detection rate of prostate cancer inrecent years, we examined the increase in the number of corestaken at initial prostate biopsy. We hypothesized that an increasingnumber of cores may undermine the accuracy of models predictingthe presence of prostate cancer at initial biopsy in patientssubmitted to 20-core initial biopsy.Methods: A total of 232 consecutive patients with prostatespecificantigen (PSA) between 4 and 20 ng/mL and/or abnormaldigital rectal examination (DRE) underwent 12-core prostate biopsyprotocol (group 1) or 20-core prostate biopsy protocol (group 2).The patients were divided into subgroups according to the resultsof their serum PSA and prostate volume. We evaluated the cancerdetection rate overall and in each subgroup. Clinical datawere analyzed using chi-square analysis and the unpaired t-testor 1-way ANOVA with significance considered at 0.05.Results: The 2 groups of patients were not significantly different withregard to parameters (age, abnormal DRE and serum PSA), althoughmedian prostate volume in group 1 (57.76 ± 26.94 cc) were slightergreater than in group 2. Cancer detection rate for patients submittedto 20 prostate biopsy was higher than patients submitted to 12prostate biopsy (35.2% vs. 25%, p = 0.095). Breakdown to PSAlevel showed a benefit to 20 prostate biopsy for PSA <6 ng/mL (37.1%vs. 12.9%, p = 0.005). Stratifying results by prostate volume, wefound that the improvement of cancer detection rate with 20 prostatebiopsy was significant in patients with a prostate volume greaterthan 60 cc (55% in 20 prostate biopsy vs. 11.3% p < 0.05). Morbidityrates were identical in groups 1 and 2 with no statistically significantdifference. There appeared to be no greater risk of infectionand bleeding with 20 prostate biopsy protocol.Conclusion: The 20-core biopsy protocol was more efficient thanthe 12-core biopsy protocol, especially in patients with prostatespecific antigen <6 ng/mL and prostate volume greater than 60 cc.Introduction : Pour augmenter le taux de détection du cancer de laprostate dans un avenir rapproché, nous avons examiné l’incidenced’une hausse du nombre de carottes prélevées lors de la biopsieprostatique initiale. Notre hypothèse était qu’en raison du nombreaccru de prélèvements, la biopsie à 20 carottes pouvait réduirel’exactitude des modèles de dépistage du cancer de la prostate à labiopsie initiale.Méthodologie : Au total, 232 patients consécutifs avec des tauxd’antigène prostatique spécifique (APS) situés entre 4 et 20 ng/mLet/ou des anomalies au toucher rectal ont subi une biopsie prostatiqueà 12 (groupe 1) ou à 20 carottes (groupe 2). Les patients ontété répartis en sous-groupes en fonction de leurs taux sériques d’APSet de leur volume prostatique. Nous avons évalué le taux de dépistagedu cancer de façon globale et par sous-groupes. Les données cli -niques ont été analysées par la méthode du chi carré et du test tpour échantillons non appariés ou par analyse unilatérale de lavariance (ANOVA), avec un seuil de signification de 0,05.Résultats : On n’a noté aucune différence significative entre lesdeux groupes quant aux paramètres (âge, anomalie au toucher rectalet taux sériques d’APS), malgré que le volume prostatique médianait été légèrement supérieur dans le groupe 1 (57,76 ± 26,94 mL)par rapport au groupe 2. Le taux de dépistage du cancer avec labiopsie prostatique à 20 carottes était plus élevé que le taux obtenuavec la biopsie à 12 carottes (35,2 % vs 25 %, p = 0,095). La répartitiondes patients en fonction des taux d’APS a fait ressortir unavantage pour la biopsie à 20 carottes lorsque les taux d’APS étaientinférieurs à 6 ng/mL (37,1 % vs 12,9 %, p = 0,005). La stratificationdes données selon le volume de la prostate a montré que lahausse des taux de dépistage du cancer associée à la biopsie prostatiqueà 20 carottes était significative lorsque le volume prostatiquedépassait 60 mL (55 % pour la biopsie à 20 carottes vs 11,3 %,p < 0,05). Les taux de morbidité étaient semblables dans les deuxgroupes, la différence n’étant pas significative sur le plan statistique.La biopsie prostatique à 20 carottes ne semblait pas associéeà un risque plus élevé d’infection et d’hémorragie.Conclusion : La biopsie à 20 carottes était plus efficace que la biopsieà 12 carottes, surtout chez les patients dont le taux d’APS était

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→