Significance of apoptotic and non‐apoptotic disseminated tumor cells in the bone marrow of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disseminated tumor cells (DTC) can be detected in a high proportion of patients with localized solid malignancies. In prostate cancer (PC), determination of DTCs is critically discussed as there are conflicting results on their prognostic value. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the presence and prognostic role of DTCs in PC patients with a high risk of disease recurrence. METHODS: 248 patients with clinically localized PC undergoing radical prostatectomy with features of increased risk of recurrence (PSA ≥10 ng/ml or Gleason score ≥ 4 + 3 = 7 or pT ≥3) were included. All patients underwent intraoperative bone marrow (BM) aspiration biopsy. BM cells were evaluated by immunocytochemistry for cytokeratines and the apoptosis marker caspase-cleaved cytokeratin 18 (M30). Results of immunocytochemistry were correlated with clinical and pathological parameters and clinical outcome of the patients. RESULTS: Of 248 patients, 47 (19.0%) had evidence of DTCs at time of radical prostatectomy. In 17 of these 47 patients (36.2%), DTCs expressed the apoptosis marker M30. We observed no correlation between the presence of DTCs and tumor stage, nodal stage, prostate-specific antigen, or Gleason score. After a median-follow-up of 58 months (23-76), no differences in rates of biochemical recurrence, development of metastases and cancer-specific death were observed between patients with and without DTCs while apoptosis markers had no role. CONCLUSIONS: In a single-centre cohort of patients with increased risk for disease recurrence, the presence of DTCs at the time of prostatectomy does not influence clinical outcome. For the first time in patients with PC, DTCs were evaluated for immunocytological features indicating apoptosis. Due to conflicting results of studies on DTCs, BM biopsies at time of radical prostatectomy cannot be recommended as a standard procedure in patients with clinically localized PC.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".