The incidence of prostate cancer and urothelial cancer in the prostate in cystoprostatectomy specimens in a tertiary care Canadian centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Radical cystoprostatectomy remains the gold standard treatment for muscle invasive bladder cancer. However, given the treatment related complications of compromised potency and continence with this procedure, prostate/sexuality sparing cystectomy in orthotopic neobladder candidates has emerged in an effort to minimize these quality of life concerns. Recent evidence suggests only a marginal functional benefit from these technical refinements. We sought to determine the incidence of occult prostate cancer and urothelial cancer of the prostate in cystoprostatectomy specimens conducted for muscle invasive bladder cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 83 male patients who underwent radical cystoprostatectomy for muscle invasive bladder cancer between April 2004 and March 2007. The median age of our study group was 71 years. Pathologic findings of prostate/urothelial cancer in the prostate were identified. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as Gleason score >6, tumour volume >0.5cc, extracapsular extension or perineural invasion. RESULTS: Our review yielded a 30% (±10%, 0.95 CI) rate of prostate cancer, with 19% (± 8.5%, 0.95 CI) of total specimens being positive for clinically significant prostate cancer. Urothelial cancer in the prostate was identified in 16% (±8.5%, 0.95 CI) of patients, with an overlap with prostate cancer in 2 patients. The overall rate of an underlying cancer within the prostate of our cystoprostatectomy specimens was about 46% (±10.7%, 0.95 CI). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the oncological risk of leaving behind residual cancer may not justify the practice of prostate-sparing cystectomies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".