No Residual Cancer on Radical Prostatectomy After Positive 10-Core Biopsy: Incidence, Biopsy Findings, and DNA Specimen Identity Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: It is uncertain whether extensive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and extended biopsies currently performed will increase the incidence of no residual cancer on subsequent prostatectomy. OBJECTIVE: To identify the incidence of cases with no residual cancer on prostatectomy after a positive 10-core biopsy and to review the clinical, biopsy, and prostatectomy findings and the results of specimen identity analysis. DESIGN: We identified 9 patients with no residual cancer in 1351 consecutive prostatectomies and we reviewed the clinical, biopsy, and prostatectomy data from our institutional database. In 6 cases encountered after 2003, we also performed a polymerase chain reaction-based microsatellite analysis on formalin-fixed tissue to confirm the identity of the biopsies and prostatectomies. RESULTS: All patients had positive biopsies in 1 or 2 cores: 1 in 7 and 2 in 2 patients (1 each, unilateral and bilateral). Mean total cancer length on biopsy measured 2.5 mm, which represented 1.7% of the total biopsy tissue. Gleason score 6 was found in 8 of 9 patients and 1 patient had Gleason score 9. Patients' age was 60.3 years, preoperative PSA was 6.0 ng/mL, and PSA density was 0.1 (all means). In 6 cases tested for microsatellite identity, the patient identity was confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of no residual cancer on prostatectomy of 0.67% after 10-core positive biopsy is higher than previously reported. In most cases, finding no residual cancer on prostatectomy after exhaustive work-up may indicate minimal patient disease. Microsatellite analysis provides a useful and cost-effective test in establishing specimen identity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".