MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2144220467 · doi:10.5489/cuaj/1068

Multifocal high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is still a significant risk factor for adencarcinoma

2010· article· en· W2144220467 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
John R. Srigley, Jennifer Merrimen, Glenn Jones, Munir Jamal

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreCredit Valley Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraepithelial neoplasiaMedicineHigh-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasiaRisk factorUrologyOncologyInternal medicineProstateCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We read with great interest the recent CUA guidelines on prostate biopsy methodology. 1 We note that the recommendation regarding high-grade prostatic intra-epithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) states that "in the current era of extended biopsy schemes, HGPIN is no longer considered a strict indication for repeat biopsy and patients should be followed clinically." 1 Our Canadian research group, set out to specifically address the issue of HGPIN on prostatic needle biopsy (PNB) after 2 large review articles authored by high profile urological pathologists, rendered differing conclusions regarding the significance of HGPIN on PNB. 2,3 We used a large Canadian database containing over 12 000 patients undergoing initial PNB and concluded that HGPIN, when multifocal, is a significant risk factor for prostate cancer (PCa) carrying an odds ratio (OR) of 1.38. 4 In fact, the risk generally increases with the extent of HGPIN such that increasing cores involved correlates with increasing risk of PCa on follow-up PNB. 4 Our initial study, although well-controlled with a benign group and statistically sound, did contain a mixture of prostate sampling protocols, so we recently repeated the study, specifically limiting the analysis to include only extended biopsy protocols yielding 10 or more cores. 5On the repeat study, we again found the same results.Patients with multifocal HGPIN carry a significantly increased risk of detecting PCa on follow-up PNB compared to patients with benign findings on initial PNB. 5 Again, there is a general elevation in risk with increasing volume of HGPIN in the initial sample with 1 core showing no increased risk of PCa (OR 0.68) but 2 cores and >2 cores involved by HGPIN showing ORs of 2.57 and 3.61, respectively. 5Our studies show that HGPIN, when multifocal, is still a significant independent risk factor for PCa, even in the current era of extended PNB protocols.While it is a sound recommendation that patients with unifocal HGPIN be followed clinically with PSA and DRE, it is our recommendation and practice that patients with multifocal HGPIN should undergo a repeat biopsy within 1 year even in the absence of PSA or DRE changes.We also suggest that pathologists with expertise in urological pathology be involved in the CUA guideline development and review process, especially when recommendations are being rendered for entities diagnosed solely on the basis of morphological findings.

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)0.010
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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→