Role of repeated biopsy of the prostate in predicting disease progression in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) with deferred treatment is an established management option for patients with prostate cancer and favorable clinical parameters. The impact of repeat biopsy after diagnosis was examined in a cohort of men with prostate cancer on AS. METHODS: In all, 186 men with prostate cancer with favorable parameters or who refused treatment were conservatively managed by AS. Of these, 92 patients had at least 1 biopsy after diagnosis. Patients were followed every 3 to 6 months with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and physical examination and were offered rebiopsy annually or if there were any changes on physical examination or in the PSA value. Disease progression while on AS was defined as having > or =1 of the following: > or =cT2b disease, > or =3 positive cores, >50% of cancer in at least 1 core, or a predominant Gleason pattern of 4 in rebiopsies. RESULTS: The median age of the patients at the time of diagnosis was 67 years (range, 49-78 years). The median follow-up was 76 months (range, 20-169 months). Of the 92 patients who underwent repeat biopsies, 42 patients, 25 patients, 13 patients, 10 patients, and 2 patients had 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 rebiopsies, respectively. A total of 34 patients (36%) demonstrated disease progression on rebiopsy. The first rebiopsy was positive for cancer in 48 patients (52.2%) and negative in 44 patients (47.8%). The 5-year actuarial progression-free probability was 82% for patients with a negative first repeat biopsy compared with 50% for patients with a positive first rebiopsy (P = .02). A PSA doubling time <67 months was associated an increased risk of disease progression on biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Negative rebiopsy in patients with prostate cancer on AS is associated with low-volume disease. The result of first repeated biopsy appears to have a strong impact on disease progression. Patients with a positive first repeated biopsy should be considered for treatment. An intensive biopsy protocol within the first 2 years is required to identify and treat those 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".