MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062127211 · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.04.102

Prostate Cancers Scored as Gleason 6 on Prostate Biopsy are Frequently Gleason 7 Tumors at Radical Prostatectomy: Implication on Outcome

2006· article· en· W2062127211 on OpenAlexaff
Jehonathan H. Pinthus, Maciej Witkoś, Neil Fleshner, Joan Sweet, Andrew Evans, Michael A.S. Jewett, Murray Krahn, Shabbir M.H. Alibhai, John Trachtenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerProstatectomyProstateProstate biopsyGeneral surgeryCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Differentiation between Gleason score 6 and 7 in prostate biopsy is important for treatment decision making. Nevertheless, under grading errors compared with the actual pathological grade at radical prostatectomy are common. We compared the characteristics and outcomes of tumors that were scored 6 on prostate biopsy but were 7 on subsequent radical prostatectomy pathological evaluation to those in tumors with a consistent rating of Gleason score 6 or 7 at biopsy and surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective database analysis from our referral center (1989 to 2004). We compared pre-prostatectomy characteristics, radical prostatectomy pathological features and the post-radical prostatectomy prostate specific antigen failure rate, defined as any 2 consecutive detectable prostate specific antigen measurements, in 3 subgroups of patients, including 156 with matched Gleason score 6 in the prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy, 205 with upgraded Gleason score 6/7, that is prostate biopsy Gleason score 6 and radical prostatectomy Gleason score 7, and 412 with matched Gleason score 7 in the prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: Radical prostatectomy Gleason score matched the prostate biopsy score in 38.2% of biopsy Gleason score 6 and 81.4% of biopsy Gleason score 7 cases. Higher prostate specific antigen was associated and an increased percent of cancer in the prostate biopsy was predictive of discordance between the prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason scores (p <0.001). Margin (p = 0.0075) or seminal vesicle involvement (p = 0.0002), cancer volume (p <0.001) and the prostate specific antigen failures rate (p = 0.014) were significantly higher in under graded Gleason score 7 cancer compared to those in matched Gleason score 6 cases. However, they were comparable to those with a matched Gleason score 7 tumor grade (p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of tumors graded Gleason score 6 at biopsy are Gleason score 7 at surgery. Upgraded Gleason score 6 to 7 tumors have outcomes similar to those of genuine Gleason score 7 cancer. For prostate biopsy Gleason score 6 tumors clinicians should consider the overall likelihood of tumor upgrading as well as specific patient characteristics, such as prostate specific antigen and the percent of tumor in the prostate biopsy, when contemplating treatments that are optimized for low grade tumors, including watchful waiting or brachytherapy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations139
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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