Prostatic Adenocarcinoma with Urothelial (Transitional Cell) Carcinoma Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prostatic adenocarcinoma and urothelial carcinoma (transitional cell carcinoma) may coexist in the prostate. However, a carcinoma with mixed features has not been recognized. Four cases, three surgical pathology cases and one autopsy case of prostatic adenocarcinoma with urothelial carcinoma features, were retrospectively found in a urological pathology teaching file maintained from 1984 to 1993. Subsequently, 181 consecutive cases of radical prostatectomy from 1994 to 1999 were reviewed, and two prostatic adenocarcinoma areas with features of urothelial carcinoma were identified. Areas with urothelial carcinoma features were identified in the intraductal component of the carcinoma in five cases and in the invasive component in three cases. The intraductal carcinoma with urothelial carcinoma areas usually merged with regions of prostatic adenocarcinoma with a papillary or cribriform pattern. All prostatic adenocarcinomas having areas with urothelial carcinoma features were of high stage, and five of six cases had ductal features. The urothelial carcinoma component displayed a positive reactivity for thrombomodulin and negative or weaker reactivity for PAP and PSA than the prostatic adenocarcinoma component in the same tumor. Excluding the case noted at autopsy, all patients died of the disease within 3 years. Urothelial carcinoma features were usually associated with ductal carcinoma of high stage. Areas of prostatic adenocarcinoma with urothelial carcinoma features should be considered histopathologically as areas of mixed carcinoma of the prostate. Prostatic adenocarcinoma with areas of urothelial carcinoma features may pose a difficult differential diagnosis problem with urothelial carcinoma, especially with small biopsies with focal weak immunoreactivity for PAP, PSA, and thrombomodulin.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".