Does perineural invasion in a radical prostatectomy specimen predict biochemical recurrence in men with prostate cancer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The ability of perineural invasion (PNI) in radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens to predict biochemical recurrence (BCR) is unclear. This study investigates this controversial question in a large cohort. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was undertaken of prospectively collected data from 1497 men who underwent RP (no neoadjuvant therapy) for clinically localized prostate cancer. The association of PNI at RP with other clinicopathological parameters was evaluated. The correlation of clinicopathological factors and BCR (defined as prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >0.2 ng/mL) was investigated with univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis in 1159 men. RESULTS: PNI-positive patients were significantly more likely to have a higher RP Gleason score, pT3 disease, positive surgical margins, and greater cancer volume (p < 0.0005). The presence of PNI significantly correlated with BCR on univariable (hazard ratio 2.30, 95% confidence interval 1.50-3.55, p < 0.0005), but not multivariable analysis (p = 0.602). On multivariable Cox regression analysis the only independent prognostic factors were preoperative PSA, RP Gleason score, pT-stage, and positive surgical margin status. These findings are limited by a relatively short follow-up time and retrospective study design. CONCLUSIONS: PNI at RP is not an independent predictor of BCR. Therefore, routine reporting of PNI is not indicated. Future research should be targeted at the biology of PNI to increase the understanding of its role in prostate cancer progression.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".