MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138090961 · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-12-3283

Urinary TMPRSS2:ERG and PCA3 in an Active Surveillance Cohort: Results from a Baseline Analysis in the Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study

2013· article· en· W2138090961 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel W. Lin, Lisa F. Newcomb, Elissa C. Brown, James D. Brooks, Peter R. Carroll, Ziding Feng, Martin Gleave, Raymond S. Lance, Martin G. Sanda, Ian M. Thompson, John T. Wei, Peter S. Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsTMPRSS2ProstateMedicineProstate cancerErgUrinary systemCohortBaseline (sea)Cohort studyOncologyInternal medicineUrologyCancerBiologyOphthalmologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Active surveillance is used to manage low-risk prostate cancer. Both PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG are promising biomarkers that may be associated with aggressive disease. This study examines the correlation of these biomarkers with higher cancer volume and grade determined at the time of biopsy in an active surveillance cohort. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Urine was collected after digital rectal examination prospectively as part of the multi-institutional Canary Prostate Active Surveillance Study (PASS). PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG levels were analyzed in urine collected at study entry. Biomarker scores were correlated to clinical and pathologic variables. RESULTS: In 387 men, both PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG scores were significantly associated with higher volume disease. For a negative repeat biopsy, and 1% to 10%, 11% to 33%, 34% or more positive cores, median PCA3, and TMPRSS2:ERG scores increased incrementally (P < 0.005). Both PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG scores were also significantly associated with the presence of high-grade disease. For a negative repeat biopsy, Gleason 6 and Gleason ≥7 cancers, the median PCA3, and TMPRSS2:ERG scores also increased incrementally (P = 0.02 and P = 0.001, respectively). Using the marker scores as continuous variables, the ORs for a biopsy in which cancer was detected versus a negative repeat biopsy (ref) on modeling was 1.41 (95% CI: 1.07-1.85), P = 0.01 for PCA3 and 1.28 (95% CI: 1.10-1.49), P = 0.001 for TMPRSS2:ERG. CONCLUSIONS: For men on active surveillance, both PCA3 and TMPRSS2:ERG seem to stratify the risk of having aggressive cancer as defined by tumor volume or Gleason score.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations138
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207