MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1826670382 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.1071

Who’s too old to screen? Prostate cancer in elderly men

2013· article· en· W1826670382 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sandeep Mistry, Wesley A. Mayer, Rose Khavari, Gustavo Ayala, Brian J. Miles

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerProstatePathologicalBiopsyProstate biopsyCancerProstate-specific antigenLogistic regressionIncidence (geometry)Internal medicineGynecologyRisk factorAdenocarcinomaUrologyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Prostate cancer is the most common nonskin malignancyaffecting men and is the second leading cause of cancerrelateddeath in North America. The incidence of prostate cancerincreases dramatically with age. However, many healthauthorities advocate the cessation of routine prostate cancer testingin men older than 75 because of the belief that most patientswill have a clinically insignificant cancer and will not benefit fromtherapy. The true prevalence of clinically significant prostate cancerin elderly men is not known.Methods: We analyzed 1446 needle biopsies of the prostate inmen aged 75 or older. All pathological reviews were conductedby the pathology department at the Methodist Hospital in Houston,Tex. Data were collected from pathology reports, hospital andclinic databases, and medical records when available. Dataobtained included age at biopsy, serum prostate-specific antigen(PSA) levels, number of positive core biopsies and Gleasongrade. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata. Clinicallysignificant cancer was defined by the pathological presence ofGleason grade 6 adenocarcinoma in more than 1 biopsy coreor the presence of any Gleason 4 or 5 component in the biopsy.Results: The median age of the patients included in the studywas 78.8 and 95% of the patients were between the ages of 75and 85. The mean serum PSA level for patients biopsied was10.4 μg/L. Of all biopsies reviewed, 53% were positive for prostatecancer and 78% of these would be defined as clinically significantcancer. Regression analysis revealed age to be a significant(p < 0.05) factor for increased Gleason grade in positive biopsies.Logistic regression revealed age as a significant factor (p <0.05) for clinically significant prostate cancer even when controllingfor PSA. A serum PSA threshold value of 6.5 μg/L would havemissed 38% of significant cancers and a threshold of 4.0 μg/Lwould have missed 8% of significant cancers.Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the prevalence of clinicallysignificant prostate cancer in the elderly population may be higherthan previously thought. As the population continues to livelonger and healthier lives, it will become more common to confrontprostate cancer morbidity in the eldery population. Usinghigher serum PSA thresholds to eliminate unnecessary biopsies inolder men does not appear to help identify patients at greaterrisk of having clinically significant prostate cancer. Patients withprostate cancer having aggressive clinical features may benefitfrom treatment of their prostate cancer well into their eighth andninth decades of life. Testing and diagnostic recommendationsshould reflect the potential benefit of identifying patients withaggressive prostate cancer even after age 75.Introduction : Le cancer de la prostate est le type de cancer noncutané le plus fréquent chez les hommes et la seconde causede décès lié au cancer en importance en Amérique du Nord.L’incidence du cancer de la prostate augmente grandement avecl’âge. Néanmoins, de nombreuses autorités en matière de santéavancent l’idée de mettre fin au dépistage systématique du cancerde la prostate chez les hommes de plus de 75 ans en raisonde la croyance selon laquelle la plupart des patients présenterontun cancer non significatif sur le plan clinique et ne bénéficierontpas d’un traitement. La véritable prévalence des cas decancer de la prostate cliniquement significatif chez les hommesâgés n’est pas établie.Méthodes : Nous avons analysé 1446 échantillons de biopsie àl’aiguille prélevés au niveau de la prostate chez des patients de75 ans ou plus. Toutes les analyses de pathologie ont été effectuéespar le service de pathologie du Methodist Hospital deHouston, au Texas. Les données ont été tirées des rapports depathologie, des bases de données des hôpitaux et des cliniques,et des dossiers médicaux lorsque possible. Les données obtenuesincluaient l’âge au moment de la biopsie, les valeurs d’antigèneprostatique spécifique (APS), le nombre de microbiopsies positiveset le score de Gleason. Les analyses statistiques ont été effectuéesà l’aide du système Stata. Le cancer cliniquement significatifest défini comme la présence d’un adénocarcinome avec un scorede Gleason de 6 dans plus d’une zone de biopsie ou un scorede Gleason de 4 ou 5 dans toute partie de l’échantillon.Résultats : L’âge moyen des patients inclus était de 78,8 ans et95 % des patients avaient entre 75 et 85 ans. La valeur moyennede l’APS chez les patients ayant subi une biopsie était de 10,4 μg/L.De tous les échantillons examinés, 53 % confirmaient la présenced’un cancer de la prostate, et le cancer était défini comme étantcliniquement significatif dans 78 % de ces cas. Une analyse derégression a révélé que l’âge était un facteur significatif (p <0,05) lié à un score de Gleason plus élevé dans les biopsies positives.Une analyse de régression logistique a révélé que l’âge étaitaussi un facteur significatif (p < 0,05) lié à un cancer de la prostatecliniquement significatif même en tenant compte du taux d’APS.Une valeur seuil d’APS de 6,5 μg/L serait passée à côté de 38 %des cas de cancer significatif, alors qu’une valeur seuil d’APSde 4,0 μg/L serait passée à côté de 8 % des cancers significatifs.Conclusion : Nos observations portent à croire que la prévalencedu cancer de la prostate significatif sur le plan clinique chezles patients âgés pourrait être plus élevée qu’on le croit. Avecl’augmentation de l’espérance de vie, l’incidence de la morbiditéliée au cancer de la prostate augmentera. Le recours àdes valeurs seuils d’APS plus élevées pour éliminer les cas debiopsies non nécessaires chez les hommes âgés ne semble pasaider à cerner les patients présentant un risque plus élevé de cancerde la prostate cliniquement significatif. Les patients atteintsde cancer de la prostate cliniquement agressif peuvent bénéficierd’un traitement contre le cancer même lorsqu’ils dépassentlargement les 80 ou les 90 ans. Les recommandations concernantle dépistage et le diagnostic devraient refléter les avantages potentielsliés au dépistage d’un cancer de la prostate agressif, mêmeaprès 75 ans.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207