Predictors of Gleason score upgrading in patients with prostate biopsy Gleason score ≤6
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The discrepancy between prostate biopsy and prostatectomy Gleason scores is common. We investigate the predictive value of prostate biopsy features for predicting Gleason score (GS) upgrading in patients with biopsy Gleason scores ≤6 who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). Our aim was to determine predictors of GS upgrading and to offer guidance to clinicians in determining the therapeutic option. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent RRP for clinically localized prostate cancer at 2 major centres between January 2007 and March 2013. All patients with either abnormal digital examination or elevated prostate-specific antigen at screening underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Variables were evaluated among the patients with and without GS upgrading. Our study limitations include its retrospective design, the fact that all subjects were Turkish and the fact that we had a small sample size. RESULTS: In total, 321 men had GS ≤6 on prostate biopsy. Of these, 190 (59.2%) had GS≤6 concordance and 131 (40.8%) had GS upgrading from ≤6 on biopsy to 7 or higher at the time of the prostatectomy. Independent predictors of pathological upgrading were prostate volume <40 cc (p < 0.001), maximum percent of cancer in any core (p = 0.011), and >1 core positive for cancer (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: When obtaining an extended-core biopsy scheme, patients with small prostates (≤40 cc), greater than 1 core positive for cancer, and an increased burden of cancer are associated with increased risk of GS upgrading. Patients with GS ≤6 on biopsy with these pathological parameters should be carefully counselled on treatment decisions.
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".