MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Do all patients with high‐grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on initial prostatic biopsy eventually progress to clinical prostate cancer?

2005· article· en· W2045844484 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan I. Izawa, Iliana C. Lega, Dónal B. Downey, Joseph L. Chin, Patrick Luke

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiopsyIntraepithelial neoplasiaProstate cancerProstateHigh-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasiaTransrectal ultrasonographyCancerProstate biopsyRectal examinationUrologyProstate-specific antigenRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical outcome of patients with a diagnosis of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) on initial prostatic biopsy, with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up, as such patients are at greater risk of having prostate cancer on subsequent biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between November 1992 and October 1998, 21 patients were identified as having PIN on their initial transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy. None of these patients had a focus of cancer on the initial biopsy. Their medical data were reviewed retrospectively to determine the natural history of PIN in these patients. Patients who were not identified as having cancer were followed every 6-12 months with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and digital rectal examinations (DRE). RESULTS: A mean (range) of 7 (2-8) cores were taken at initial biopsy; the mean age of the patients was 63 (53-77) years and mean PSA level 9.1 (4.9-17.6) ng/mL. Six patients had an abnormal DRE at presentation. A mean of 8 (7-10) cores were obtained on the second biopsy; six patients were diagnosed with cancer, with a mean Gleason score of 6 (5-7), while three were diagnosed with persistent PIN. These three patients had a third prostate biopsy which showed cancer of Gleason score 6 in one and benign prostatic hyperplasia in two. After a mean follow-up of 72.2 (60-84) months, none of the remaining 12 patients was diagnosed with clinically significant cancer. Five of these patients went on to a third prostate biopsy, with no evidence of cancer. One patient died from unrelated causes during this period. CONCLUSION: This study affirms our current practice of following patients with PIN conservatively if a second or third subsequent prostate biopsy is negative. Whether PIN is a premalignant lesion or merely a lesion associated with cancer needs to be addressed in multicentre studies with a follow-up of > 10 years.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207