Upper limit of cancer extent on biopsy defining very low‐risk prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate how much Gleason pattern 3 cancer prostate biopsy specimens may contain without an increased risk of undetected more aggressive cancer, compared with the risk for cancers fulfilling the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria for very low-risk prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 1286 men aged <70 years in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden who underwent primary radical prostatectomy (RP) for stage T1c or T2 prostate cancer with Gleason pattern ≤3 only, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of <10 ng/mL and a PSA density of <0.15 ng/mL/mL. The association between the extent of cancer in the biopsies (the number and proportion of positive cores and the total cancer length in the cores in millimetres) and the likelihood of Gleason pattern 4-5 in the RP specimen was analysed with logistic regression. RESULTS: In all, 438 (34%) of the 1286 men had Gleason pattern 4-5 in the RP specimen. Increasing number and proportion of positive biopsy cores, as well as increasing biopsy cancer length were both significantly associated with increased risk of upgrading at RP in univariable analysis, but in multivariable analysis only biopsy cancer length remained significant. The 684 men with stage T1c and <8 mm cancer had similar risk of upgrading regardless of whether the number of positive biopsy cores was 1-2 or 3-4 (28% vs 27% risk); upgrading was more common among the remaining men (40%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Men aged <70 years with stage T1c prostate cancer and 3-4 biopsy cores with Gleason pattern 3 are not more likely to have undetected Gleason pattern 4-5 cancer than men with 1-2 cores with cancer, provided that the total biopsy cancer length is <8 mm. We propose that the definition of very low-risk prostate cancer is widened accordingly.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".