Clinically significant prostate cancer found incidentally in radical cystoprostatectomy specimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the incidence, histopathological features and clinical outcomes of patients with incidental prostate cancer found in radical cystoprostatectomy (RCP) specimens excised for bladder cancer, to determine if these cancers affected the follow-up strategy and if prostate-sparing cystectomy would be appropriate for these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of men who had a RCP for transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) of the bladder, at our institution between 1987 and 2003. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis or clinical suspicion of prostate cancer were excluded from further analysis. We identified those men with incidental prostate cancer in the RCP specimens. The patients' demographic, histopathological and clinical outcome data were collected. RESULTS: In all, 217 men had RCP for TCC between 1987 and 2003; 13 were excluded from the study due to a preoperative diagnosis or clinical suspicion of prostate cancer, and 58 (28%) were found to have incidental prostate cancer. The mean (range) follow-up was 47 (6-157) months. Of these prostate cancers, 20% were of Gleason score > or = 7 and two patients developed local and metastatic prostate cancer recurrences. CONCLUSION: Incidental prostate cancer is a relatively common finding in RCP specimens, with a significant proportion having the characteristics of clinically relevant prostate cancer. The follow-up for prostate cancer should be incorporated with that for TCC and adapted according to the grade and stage of the prostate cancer. Preserving the prostate in an attempt to decrease the morbidity after RCP carries a high risk of significant prostate cancer in the residual prostatic tissue, suggesting that prostate-sparing cystectomy should only be reserved for a highly selected group of patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".