MP63-13 REPEAT PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN TESTING REDUCES UNNECESSARY PROSTATE BIOPSIES.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Detection & Screening III1 Apr 2014MP63-13 REPEAT PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN TESTING REDUCES UNNECESSARY PROSTATE BIOPSIES. Andrew Binette, Kelsey Witiuk, Ranjeeta Mallick, Chris Morash, Ilias Cagiannos, Luke Lavallee, and Rodney Breau Andrew BinetteAndrew Binette More articles by this author , Kelsey WitiukKelsey Witiuk More articles by this author , Ranjeeta MallickRanjeeta Mallick More articles by this author , Chris MorashChris Morash More articles by this author , Ilias CagiannosIlias Cagiannos More articles by this author , Luke LavalleeLuke Lavallee More articles by this author , and Rodney BreauRodney Breau More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.1950AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The impact of repeating a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test in a patient with a single abnormal value has been inadequately studied. Our primary objective was to evaluate the effect of an automatic repeat PSA in patients referred to a regional cancer diagnostic centre with an abnormal PSA value. METHODS All patients seen at The Ottawa Regional Prostate Cancer Assessment Clinic from April 2008 to May 2013 were reviewed. As per protocol, all patients were requested to obtain a repeat PSA prior to their consultation. Patients referred with a PSA ≥10 ng/L, a previous prostate biopsy, normal initial PSA value, or greater than 3 months between PSA tests were excluded. Patient age, prostate exam findings, and PSA values were obtained. Any prostate biopsy within 1 year following initial consultation was included. RESULTS Of the 1758 patients seen during the study period, 1271 (72%) met inclusion criteria and had a PSA at referral between 4 and 10 ng/L. Mean age was 64.3±8.4, mean first PSA was 6.3±1.6, and mean second PSA was 9.8±150.7. The repeated PSA was normal (<4ng/L) in 315 (25%) patients. A prostate biopsy was performed in 594 (62%) patients with an abnormal repeat PSA compared to 89 (28%) patients with a normal repeat PSA (RR of biopsy associated with abnormal repeat 2.20; CI 1.8-2.6; p<0.001). When the repeat PSA was abnormal, 57% of biopsies detected cancer and 31% detected Gleason ≥7 cancer. When the repeat PSA was normal, only 29% detected cancer (RR 0.52; CI 0.4-0.7; p<0.0001) and 11% detected Gleason ≥7 cancer (RR 0.69; CI 0.4-1.1; p=0.15). Analyses using age-specific and 2.5ng/L PSA thresholds had similar associations and will be presented. CONCLUSIONS Repeat PSA testing in patients with an abnormal screening PSA is clinically useful. A normal second PSA is associated with decreased risk of prostate biopsy and prostate cancer diagnosis. © 2014FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 191 Issue 4S April 2014 Page: e713 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014Metrics Author Information Andrew Binette More articles by this author Kelsey Witiuk More articles by this author Ranjeeta Mallick More articles by this author Chris Morash More articles by this author Ilias Cagiannos More articles by this author Luke Lavallee More articles by this author Rodney Breau More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".